Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Steve King Wants to Fund Border Wall With Food Stamps and Planned Parenthood Funding

The debate over how to fund a border wall between Mexico and the U.S. is far from over. The Office of Management and Budget has requested $1.6 billion in taxpayer money to pay for construction of the wall. But this morning, Representative Steve King from Iowa said he wants to spend even more money than that. In an interview on CNN, he said he would “throw another $5 billion on the pile and I would find half a billion of that from right out of Planned Parenthood’s budget. And the rest of it could come out of food stamps and the entitlements that are being spread out for people who haven’t worked in three generations.”

Has republican congressman @SteveKingIA – a friend of far-right populists Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders – reached peak evil here? https://t.co/UuWWCdLr3C

— Evan O’Connell (@evanoconnell) July 12, 2017

Almost two-thirds of all Americans who receive food stamps are children, disabled, or elderly. An average food stamp household has an annual income of less than $10,000. “I’m sure that all of them didn’t need it,” King said.

In a document from May, the Trump Administration stated it wanted to cut the food stamp program by $193 billion. The irony is that out of the 10 areas with the highest concentration of food stamps, seven voted for Trump. This morning, King also implied that an increasing number of Americans are obese, so they don’t need food stamps.

Um. I think I just got to my desk in time to hear Rep. Steve King say on CNN getting rid of food stamps would solve obesity problem.

— Dorey Scheimer (@DoreyScheimer) July 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, Maryland became the first state to pass laws protecting Planned Parenthood. For that story and other trending news, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Cannabis Legalization in Colorado

Legalized cannabis. From California’s Proposition 215 in 1996 to West Virginia’s SB 386 in 2017, legalized cannabis is becoming the norm. And in Colorado, legalized cannabis is almost old news. But how did we get here? A mix of timing, trailblazers, economics, and politics.

NRA Video Sparks Reactions from Both Supporters and Opponents

The National Rifle Association (NRA) released a video on Thursday imploring its followers to stock up on firearms and “fight back” against liberals. But many Americans were horrified by the inflammatory message, fearing that it could spark violence. The lobbying group’s video claims that liberal Americans are indoctrinating children, “assassinating [the] real news,” and using Hollywood celebrities to further their narrative. Titled “The Violence of Lies,” the video claims that when police stop the demonstrators from protesting they will be accused of police brutality.

Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1. SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1.

SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

Karen J. Nelson, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, applauded the law’s passage in April but also highlighted the continuing fight for health care nationwide.

“As Marylanders, we must remember that a state solution does not change the fact that politicians in Congress are trying to prohibit millions of people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood,” Nelson said. “It’s incumbent on all of us to keep up the fight for women. No state should have to step in to fulfill the federal government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has access to care.”

In addition to defunding Planned Parenthood for one year, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate health care bills include sweeping cuts to Medicaid spending. Supporters of Planned Parenthood joined other protesters on June 27 to specifically protest the Senate’s health care bill, including a group of activists dressed as women from “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

There are nine Planned Parenthood locations in Maryland, and their funding will be protected by the legislation. However, the future for Planned Parenthood is less promising in other states. Take Iowa for example–four of its Planned Parenthood clinics have recently closed. Iowa has approved a state budget that cut off the organization’s funding. Some Iowans fear that more closures could be on the horizon if the Senate’s health bill passes.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards condemned Iowa’s defunding of Planned Parenthood on social media.

Today, a devastating “defunding” law in Iowa is forcing 1/3 of our health centers in the state to close.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

Here’s what that means: nearly 15,000 people will lose access to the doctors and nurses they trust. https://t.co/DMQ6NAUzwf pic.twitter.com/dwCDSuZ9Cd

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

If other states follow in Iowa’s footsteps instead of Maryland’s, health care services could be in jeopardy for those states’ citizens who rely on Planned Parenthood.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding appeared first on Law Street.

FBI’s Russia Probe Makes it Across the Pond

The investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia continue, and now there’s a new name popping up as a reported “person of interest.” Nigel Farage, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) that drove the “Leave” movement pre-Brexit, is apparently of interest to the FBI. Specifically, the FBI appears to be probing Farage’s ties to Julian Assange, the controversial founder of WikiLeaks, as well as some other individuals connected to Trump, including Roger Stone. This doesn’t mean that Farage is believed to have done anything wrong, rather that the FBI thinks that he may have information that is relevant to its probe into Trump and Russia.

Farage denies the claims that he’s a person of interest in the investigation. A spokesman told the Guardian, which first published the claims, that the questions were “verging on the hysterical.”

“If you triangulate Russia, WikiLeaks, Assange and Trump associates the person who comes up with the most hits is Nigel Farage.” https://t.co/oar5if5d1u

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 1, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News Founder Roger Ailes Has Died

Roger Ailes, one of the founders of Fox News, passed away this morning at 77. His cause of death has yet to be released. Fox announced the news and aired a statement from his wife Elizabeth, which read, “I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband, Roger Ailes, passed away this morning. Roger was a loving husband to me, to his son Zachary, and a loyal friend to many.”

Ailes was a prominent figure in American media as well as a powerful force in conservative politics, and many expressed their condolences. But many also referenced the sexual harassment controversy that led to his removal from the network he created last summer.

Former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson sued him for sexual harassment and at least six other women came forward with similar claims. After Ailes’ ouster, news broke about similar allegations against Bill O’Reilly, who lost his job in April. A lot of people were really not that sorry to hear the news of Ailes’ passing.

Roger Ailes behaved egregiously toward women in his organization and changed our culture for the worse, making people dumber and angrier.

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) May 18, 2017

To all of the women that Roger Ailes hurt, today is going to hurt. We will never forget you and your untold stories.

— Xeni Jardin (@xeni) May 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Texas has asked the government to give the state back the federal Medicaid money that it gave up when it chose to exclude Planned Parenthood from its family planning program. The request has alarmed women’s health advocates, who worry that if Texas is given access to the money without having to include Planned Parenthood again, it could set an example for other states to do the same thing.

The program Texas wants to fund is an alternative for women’s reproductive health that doesn’t include any abortion providers. It is called Healthy Texas Women and it connects women with providers that offer cancer screenings, contraception, and treatment for diabetes or high blood pressure. It helps women that make up to 200 percent of the poverty line and don’t qualify for Medicaid.

Normally, these types of programs are financed largely by federal money and the rest by the state. But after Texas decided to shut out all providers that offered abortions in 2013, the program had to be completely financed by state money. That is because federal law doesn’t allow states to simply pick and choose which providers it gives Medicaid money to.

Um, no. If you throw women under the bus, you don’t get the money. https://t.co/GLHN6iTsZk

— Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) May 16, 2017

But critics say most women don’t know that Healthy Texas Women even exists. The number of women enrolled has decreased significantly compared to the number enrolled in a previous version of the program in 2015. And the difference is even larger compared to the number enrolled in the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program in 2011, when Planned Parenthood was still included. Officials have spent millions of dollars on marketing, but it hasn’t been as successful as expected. Reduced funding also led to many women losing health coverage.

Joe Pojman, executive director for Texas Alliance for Life, said that “low-income women deserve better care than Planned Parenthood is willing or able to provide.” But women are not as sure about that. Jessica Farrar, Democratic Texas State Representative, said earlier in May:

Increased funding for marketing for Healthy Texas Women highlights the simple fact this program has not yet, and never will, replace Planned Parenthood.

And Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director for Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, agreed:

They’ve been trying this for several years, but every time they’ve gone through an iteration of this they’ve not been able to make it work. Why is this taking you so long if it was supposed to be so easy to do this without Planned Parenthood?

A study looking into the effects of removing Planned Parenthood from the state’s health program showed that throughout the following 18 months thousands of women stopped getting long-acting birth control. There was also a 27 percent increase in Medicaid pregnancies. Texas now has the most births in the country: 400,000 babies were born between July 1, 2014 and the same date a year later. Texas also has one of the highest teen birth rates in the U.S.

Now state legislators wants to get the Medicaid funding back for Healthy Texas Women but not be required to include any abortion providers. And considering President Trump’s record on abortion legislation so far, it doesn’t look impossible. “This is a new administration, and we’re looking at what funding opportunities may exist for us,” said Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Wants Medicaid Money Back, Won’t Play Nice with Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

The debate over government funding of Planned Parenthood is seemingly never-ending. During last month’s controversy over repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, talk of defunding Planned Parenthood–essentially ensuring that Medicaid funds cannot go to the health provider service–was a common refrain. Defunding Planned Parenthood, advocates say, would ensure that taxpayer money is not used for abortions.

People who disagree with defunding Planned Parenthood have a consistent response to that proposal–that federal money cannot be used for abortion services because of something called “the Hyde Amendment.” Read on to learn what the Hyde Amendment is, its history, and what exactly it requires.

The History of the Hyde Amendment

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade. With a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that a woman’s right to an abortion is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. That decision legalized abortion in the United States, although states still have control over certain aspects–like at what point in a woman’s pregnancy abortion can be restricted.

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States set up the debate between pro-choice and pro-life advocates that is still being waged today. Between 1973 and 1976 various attempts to prevent Medicaid funding from being used for abortions were introduced and failed. But in 1976, the Hyde Amendment was introduced by Congressman Henry Hyde. It was not any sort of standalone law, but rather a rider attached to the 1977 fiscal year’s Labor, Health and Humans Services Appropriations Bill.

There was a lot of back-and-forth and disagreements between the House and the Senate, and the measure went through a number of revisions before it was successful. Language that made exceptions for abortions in the case that the mother could die without the procedure was inserted, removed, and inserted again.

But eventually the provision known as the “Hyde Amendment” was passed in 1977. In essence, it prohibited any use of Medicaid funds for abortion, unless the life of the mother was endangered. The passage of the Hyde Amendment was seen as a big win for the growing pro-life movement, but because it’s a rider attached to an appropriations bill, it needs to be re-passed every year.

Legal Challenges

After the Hyde Amendment was passed, its legality was almost immediately challenged. The Reproductive Freedom Project, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Planned Parenthood, representing health care providers and a pregnant Medicaid patient, obtained an injunction 40 minutes after the provision went into effect. Federal Judge John F. Dooling Jr. granted the injunction, setting off a legal battle that made its way to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS sent the case back to Dooling, who kept the injunction in place for that year.

While the Hyde Amendment worked its way through the legal system, it also underwent revisions in Congress. Because it needs to be passed again through an appropriations bill each year, there’s plenty of room to edit and refine the language. Eventually, language that allowed for exceptions in the case of rape or incest were added.

Harris v. McRae 

In 1980, the Supreme Court officially weighed in on the legality of the Hyde Amendment in the case of Harris v. McRae. Cora McRae was a pregnant Medicaid patient who challenged the legality of the provision. The court was asked to weigh whether the Hyde Amendment violated the right to privacy, the right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment, or Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment. In a ruling neatly split by ideology, the court decided that the Hyde Amendment violated none of the above. According to Oyez:

The Court held that states participating in the Medicaid program were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions under Title XIX. The Court found that a woman’s freedom of choice did not carry with it ‘a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.’ The Court ruled that because the Equal Protection Clause was not a source of substantive rights and because poverty did not qualify as a ‘suspect classification,’ the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, the Court held that the coincidence of the funding restrictions of the statute with tenets of the Roman Catholic Church did not constitute an establishment of religion.

Although the text has evolved slightly over time, it’s similar to the original concept–federal funds through Medicaid should not be used for abortion services. The current text allows exceptions for if a mother’s life is at risk, or if a woman has become pregnant through rape or incest. Despite political majorities changing over time, and other legal cases brought against the provision, some version of the Hyde Amendment has passed every year since 1977.

Modern Day: H.R. 7

Recently, the Hyde Amendment has made it back into the news again, in the sense that there are moves being made to render it permanent. H.R. 7, also known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act” would codify the already-existing provisions in the Hyde Amendment and make the restrictions on federal funding permanent. It would also prevent women who are on military insurance or work for the federal government from using their insurance for abortion services.

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 7 on January 24, 2017 with a 238-183 vote. It’s unlikely to pass the Senate (similar bills passed the House in recent years and were not passed by the Senate) but if it does, it seems likely that President Donald Trump would choose to sign it.

Arguments for and Against the Hyde Amendment

There are plenty of arguments for and against the Hyde Amendment, many of which are tied to the general debate over abortion. The following lists are by no means conclusive. But like abortion, the Hyde Amendment remains incredibly controversial.

Arguments for the Hyde Amendment 

Advocates of the Hyde Amendment argue that it saves lives. The 40th anniversary of the original passage of the Hyde Amendment was in September 2016, and it was celebrated as having “saved two million lives” since its passage. Advocates argue that cutting funding for abortion prevents women from having abortions. Although it’s obviously difficult to quantify how many women would have sought abortions had they been able to, pro-life advocates estimate that if the Hyde Amendment was repealed, abortion rates would increase by roughly 25 percent.

Another argument in favor of the Hyde Amendment is that it is supported by the American public. Polling on the issue has varied widely–in fact, both supporters and detractors of the Hyde Amendment regularly make this argument–but it’s true that certain polls have indicated Americans are not in favor of using Medicaid funds for abortions. A Politico poll conducted in October 2016 found that 58 percent of voters are not in support of using Medicaid funding for abortion.

Even some pro-choice individuals are in favor of the Hyde Amendment, arguing that regardless of their personal or political beliefs on abortion, taxpayer money should not be involved. For example during the 2016 election, Senator Tim Kaine, in contrast to his running mate Hillary Clinton, was supportive of the Hyde Amendment. Kaine “stood with” Clinton’s efforts to repeal it, but said he was personally in support of the measure.

Arguments Against the Hyde Amendment

Critics of the Hyde Amendment point out that it is specifically intended to target poor women and women of color who rely on Medicaid. Hyde’s own statements when he introduced the measure provide some fodder for that point of view. He stated: “I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the (Medicaid) bill.” Advocates of repealing the Hyde Amendment point out that an abortion is expensive to pay for out-of-pocket, so many women who rely on Medicaid don’t have that option.

Those who support repealing the Hyde Amendment also point out that restricting access to abortion doesn’t necessarily lead to less abortions, but it leads to more unsafe abortions. They also point out that women who want an abortion but aren’t able to obtain one are more likely to fall into poverty than a woman who is able to. And given that many women who seek abortions already have at least one other child, that can be dire for entire families. Of course, traditional pro-choice arguments come into play when discussing the Hyde Amendment–including that women’s healthcare shouldn’t be a political decision.

Conclusion

Given that the Hyde Amendment comes up almost every time there’s discussion about “defunding” Planned Parenthood, it’s important to understand exactly what it does. The Hyde Amendment, like the abortion debate as a whole, is complicated, convoluted, and confusing. First introduced shortly after the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the language has evolved over time, but one thing has been consistent–it prohibits federal funding from being used for abortions. Given public opinion, as well as the Hyde Amendment’s longevity thus far, it seems likely that it will remain in place for the next few years.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the Hyde Amendment? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that effectively gives states the option of withholding federal funds from family planning and women’s health clinics. Days before Trump was sworn into office, former President Barack Obama signed a rule that barred states from withholding federal money earmarked for family planning centers like Planned Parenthood. The Trump Administration’s resolution essentially undoes Obama’s action.

The resolution narrowly passed Congress on March 30, as Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. It was applauded by pro-life groups, and derided by pro-choice advocates. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) called the resolution a “major pro-life victory.”

Trump has expressed support for Planned Parenthood in the past, but has also come out against abortion. The Republican-controlled Congress is filled with lawmakers who have long-sought greater restrictions on non-profit groups that perform abortions and receive federal grants. Planned Parenthood, a group that largely provides health-related services to women across the country–half of its affiliates do not perform abortions–has become a favorite punching bag of pro-life lawmakers and advocacy groups.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group, welcomed the resolution. “Prioritizing funding away from Planned Parenthood to comprehensive health care alternatives is a winning issue,” she said. “We expect to see Congress continue its efforts to redirect additional taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood through pro-life health care reform after the spring recess.”

Congress is certain to continue pushing a pro-life agenda. But pressure from liberal groups and advisers in his own orbit who lean more pro-choice, like his daughter Ivanka, could push Trump to abandon any hard-line positions on groups like Planned Parenthood. Pro-choice groups are dismayed however, at the direction Trump seems to be taking.

“[Women’s] worst fears are now coming true,” Dawn Laguens, the executive president of Planned Parenthood said in a statement. “We are facing the worst political attack on women’s health in a generation as lawmakers have spent the past three months trading away women’s health and rights at every turn.” And Heidi Williamson, senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, said: “Trump’s actions are creating very real and damaging consequences for millions of women and their families, inflicting direct harm on already vulnerable communities.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Gives States More Freedom to Block Family Planning Funds appeared first on Law Street.

In a Senate vote on Thursday, Vice President Mike Pence stepped in and broke the 50-50 tie in favor of getting rid of an Obama-era rule that prohibits states from defunding health care providers for political reasons. Even after the Republicans managed to bring in Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, who is recovering from two back surgeries and had to use a walker and wheelchair, the vote ended in a 50-50 tie. Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, both known as moderates, joined the Senate Democrats and Independents in voting against the measure. Pence then cast the deciding vote.

Democrats criticized the GOP for the move, with Senator Patty Murray of Washington saying that the Democrats would spend Thursday afternoon speaking out against it. Doing this “would undo a valuable effort by the Obama Administration to ensure that health care providers are evaluated for federal funding based on their ability to provide the services in question, not on ideology,” she said.

Pres Trump is so focused on attacking women’s health, he sent women’s health advisor—@VP Pence—to break a tie vote on latest attack. #TitleX https://t.co/QOBHpY76Oz

— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) March 30, 2017

There was a procedural vote earlier in the day that also required Pence’s tie-breaking powers. The new measure will use the Congressional Review Act to repeal a rule that the Obama Administration introduced late last year that prohibits states from blocking Title X funding to healthcare providers that offer abortion services.

Title X is the only federal grant program where money goes exclusively to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income people and those without insurance. It dates back to the 1970s and President Richard Nixon. Title X money makes sure patients can go get tested for STDs or HIV, cancer screenings, treatments, and birth control. However, the Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used for abortions.

But, if the Republicans get their way, states will be able to withhold federal money from going to any family planning service that offers abortions at all, even if the money wouldn’t be used for abortion services. Republicans argued that Obama’s requirement that states distribute money to healthcare providers regardless of whether they also perform abortions hurt small, local communities. How and why is unclear. “It substituted Washington’s judgment for the needs of real people,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

Obviously a lot of women and Democrats did not agree with this and spoke out forcefully on social media.

The VP was sent to break a tie vote on #TitleX.

Amazing what GOP leaders will do to make sure women’s health centers don’t get funded. https://t.co/SoHVxURl6H

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 30, 2017

Title X is a bipartisan program to provide birth control, cancer screenings & HIV tests, & @VP Pence cast the tiebreaking vote attacking it

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 30, 2017

When politicians interfere in women’s personal health decisions, women get hurt. Call your senator: https://t.co/V1XhwtywtW #TitleX

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) March 30, 2017

Many women also took issue with the fact that Mike Pence received an award last week from the Independent Women’s Forum. That organization was formed after law professor Anita Hill accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in the 1990s. But it’s important to note that IWF formed because they didn’t believe Hill, which makes it less surprising that the group would award Pence for his work on behalf of women.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mike Pence Casts Tie-Breaking Vote Allowing States to Defund Family Planning Services appeared first on Law Street.

The two anti-abortion activists who secretly filmed conversations with staff members and doctors from Planned Parenthood are now facing felony charges in California. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt recorded their conversations with various people associated with the organization in 2014 and 2015, using a hidden camera, to expose what they claimed to be a plot by Planned Parenthood to sell fetal material.

Now California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has announced that the two activists violated state law by filming people without their consent. Daleiden expectedly called the charges “bogus” and “fake news” in a statement on his organization’s website, the Center for Medical Progress. But his theory that Planned Parenthood is “harvesting” and selling fetal tissue for profit has been debunked in more than a dozen states where investigations have been conducted.

Back in 2015, Daleiden and Merritt tried to prove that Planned Parenthood was committing a crime by selling fetal tissue. But representatives from the organization said that the videos were heavily edited and taken out of context. Also, the organization only donates tissue for scientific research–always with the patients’ full consent–and gets reimbursements for expenses.

#PlannedParenthood

Anti-abortion propagandist filmmakers @daviddaleiden, Sandra Merritt charged with 15 felonieshttps://t.co/DLFiG5CH0Q pic.twitter.com/MpRniSu7dq

— WarOnWomen (@WarAgainstWomen) March 29, 2017

A Texas grand jury found that Planned Parenthood had done nothing wrong, but found that Daleiden and Merritt used fake drivers licenses to gain access to a Planned Parenthood meeting. Daleiden was also charged with a misdemeanor for trying to buy human tissue, which is ironic since that was the crime he was trying to accuse Planned Parenthood of. Those charges were dismissed. But the California felony charges are related to the secret filming and total 15 each–one count per person they secretly filmed, and one count of conspiracy.

And there’s more bad news for the two–on Wednesday, a federal appeals court blocked the release of more videos by their group. Daleiden called that decision an attack on the First Amendment. “CMP will continue to fight this unconstitutional abuse of power and vindicate our First Amendment rights and those of all citizen journalists to speak and publish on matters of urgent public concern,” Daleiden said.

But the National Abortion Federation said that the release of the videos would put its members at risk, which is not far-fetched to think. Last January, Planned Parenthood sued the Center for Medical Progress, claiming that the release of the heavily edited and misleading videos caused a dangerous environment for its employees. Many Planned Parenthood employees have received threats, and in 2015 there was a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado that left three people dead.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Abortion Activists Who Secretly Filmed Planned Parenthood Charged with Felonies appeared first on Law Street.

For many women, birth control pills feel like a lifesaver. When taken properly, they are 99 percent effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and often have the added bonus of reducing acne, regulating periods, and easing menstrual cramps. But, apparently their “lifesaving” status isn’t only meant metaphorically. According to a study by Oxford University, birth control pills have saved 200,000 lives from endometrial cancer over a nine-year period.

The Collaborative Group on Epidemiological Studies on Endometrial Cancer conducted the study and based on the results, believe that 400,000 cases of endometrial cancer before the age of 75 have been prevented over the past 50 years. Researchers determined this after analyzing the cases of 27,276 women with endometrial cancer and 115,743 without.

Endometrial cancer, more commonly known as uterine cancer, is a type of cancer that begins in the lining of the uterus and typically affects post-menopausal women. According to the National Cancer Institute, approximately 60,050 women in the U.S. were diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2016, and approximately 10,470 women died from the disease, based on 2013 statistics.

The Oxford University study was first published in 2015 but made the news again this week, and its findings are more relevant than ever in light of recent events. This is especially true given that today is International Women’s Day, and women across the country are striking to protest President Donald Trump and to advocate for the rights of women–including reproductive rights.

This week Trump unveiled his highly awaited Obamacare replacement plan, which notably included provisions that would defund Planned Parenthood–preventing the organization from using federal funding toward its family planning services–and prevent Americans from using their tax credits to help pay for plans that include coverage of elective abortion services.

Under the new law, low-income women would have a much harder time obtaining affordable contraceptive options, including birth control pills. If the bill manages to make its way through Congress, the number of unwanted pregnancies and endometrial cancer cases could both rise.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Birth Control Pills Saved 200,000 Lives Over a Decade appeared first on Law Street.

After seven years of nonstop handwringing, GOP lawmakers have finally made some progress in their promise to undo the Affordable Care Act. On Monday, House Republicans unveiled two draft laws that, taken together, provide a sketch for what the future of health care in America will look like. There is still a long way to go: hardline conservatives in the House have already admonished the new GOP health care plan for not changing enough; some GOP Senators have expressed reluctance to pull back Medicaid too much; and, of course, Democrats will be pushing back hard while the Republican-controlled Congress tries to push its new health care vision. Here is what you need to know.

What Won’t Change?

Though Obamacare has been the target of much Republican ire over the past seven years, some of the law’s most popular tenets would remain unchanged under the new law. For one, young adults can remain on their parents’ health plan until the age of 26, so many millennials can breathe a sigh of relief. In addition, in what was one of the ACA’s most lauded achievements, insurers will not be able to turn a customer with preexisting conditions away, or charge them more. Critics say that retaining these Obamacare staples while overhauling other elements is untenable. Remember, the GOP plan revealed on Monday is a rough draft, sure to go through many edits before any laws are actually changed.

What Will Change?

Mainly: tax credits. Income-based tax credits will still be part of the plan, but they will be phased out over time. Instead, tax credits will shift to an age-based model. Under 30? You’re eligible for $2,000 per year. Sixty or older? You could be eligible for as much as $4,000. Families would also receive more. Another change: in lieu of the mandate–Obamacare imposed a tax on the uninsured–insurers can levy a 30 percent increase on premiums if your insurance lapses.

Medicaid would be significantly altered under the Republican plan. Essentially, the federal government would pay a per-person cash allotment to individual states. The amount given would be determined by different categories of a state’s residents: children, elderly, people with disabilities. Mirroring the Republican ethos, the plan takes a bottom-up approach (states have more flexibility) rather than a top-down one (the federal government calls the shots). In addition, Planned Parenthood could stop receiving federal funding for one year.

The changes to Medicaid could be a step too far for some Republicans. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), four GOP Senators expressed their concerns. “We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states,” Senators Rob Portman (OH), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Cory Gardner (CO), and Lisa Murkowski (AK) wrote.

What Happens Next?

More handwringing and, most likely, Republican infighting. In the coming days, two House committees, Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, will review the plan. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has said he hopes to get the full House to vote on the bill by the April 7 recess. The legislation faces a rocky road ahead. A number of House caucuses, including the Tea Party stalwart the Freedom Caucus, have branded the new health plan as “Obamacare Lite” and “Obamacare 2.0.” Whether hardline conservatives will squeeze more of their priorities into the final bill remains to be seen.

And of course, it is highly likely that no Democrats, in the House or the Senate, will support the plan. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, had this to say about the newly revealed Republican plan: “Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage — and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely.”

But President Donald Trump, who promised to revamp Obamacare during his first days in office, is confident the plan will pass:

Our wonderful new Healthcare Bill is now out for review and negotiation. ObamaCare is a complete and total disaster – is imploding fast!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the New GOP Health Care Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republicans Finally Introduce Their Obamacare Replacement

Yesterday, House Republicans presented their draft version of a replacement of the Affordable Care Act, which was one of President Donald Trump’s most ardent campaign promises. The new law would keep some of the ACA’s key components, such as prohibiting companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and allowing people under 26 to stay on their parents’ health plan. However, it would reverse the expansion of Medicaid and drop the requirement that bigger companies must provide health insurance for full-time employees. It also does away with the provision that requires Americans to either have health insurance or pay a penalty fee. And it would get rid of federal subsidies for low-income individuals and, as many people have feared, defund Planned Parenthood for one year (more on that below).

According to Republicans, the ACA is “a sinking ship.” But Democrats are highly critical of this new plan. “Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage–and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. And some on social media were also critical of the language used to refer to the new plan, claiming it was out of touch and didn’t acknowledge the real costs of care in the U.S.

Yes, the reason poor have trouble affording health care is all the new iPhones they’re buying. https://t.co/EJsZaejOH1 pic.twitter.com/SWoUp2nvAe

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) March 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s important to keep in mind that someone is always having a worse day than you. Yesterday, that someone was Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Chaffetz, who is also the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, was flooded by a chorus of boos and chants at a town hall he hosted in his district last night.

WATCH: Jason Chaffetz being greeted with “Do Your Job!” chants at town hall. Per CNN, he left the town hall an hour early @jasoninthehouse pic.twitter.com/8uw7cbwjcW

— Yashar (@yashar) February 10, 2017

Chaffetz’s experience at the town hall was probably jarring for him for a whole multitude of reasons, but mostly because his day seemed to be going pretty well up until that point. Yesterday afternoon, Chaffetz gained bi-partisan praise for condemning Kellyanne Conway for promoting Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom fashion line in an interview on “Fox & Friends.” Conway seemingly violated an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from using their position “for their own private gain, for the private gain of friends . . . or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-government capacity.”

Speaking to reporters on the Hill, Chaffetz said Conway’s comments were “clearly over the line, wrong, wrong, wrong, and unacceptable.” Later, Chaffetz tweeted a letter he, along with Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, sent to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics, calling for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway.

What she did was wrong, wrong, wrong. Here is our bi-partisan letter to the White House and OGE. #Donteverdothis https://t.co/zqeYhcttMB

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) February 9, 2017

So, Chaffetz was probably feeling pretty good about himself after all that. Of course, all good things must come to an end. After a visit to the Utah State Senate, Chaffetz made his way over to his town hall meeting at Brighton High School, which, according to an event Facebook page, was not advertised by Chaffetz and changed locations multiple times because of large interest. While Chaffetz did not officially promote the event, multiple left-leaning groups like the Wasatch Socialist Party set up event pages that led to an outpouring of protestors and attendees, according to Utah’s KUTV news reporter Chris Jones.

The auditorium, which seats 1,100, was filled to capacity while about 1,500 people stood outside the school, chanting and holding up signs.

Several thousand people outside of Brighton HS. Who couldn’t get into @jasoninthehouse town hall. #utpol pic.twitter.com/gtARJu9mSf

— Chris Jones (@jonesnews) February 10, 2017

Auditorium for Cong Chaffetz Town hall packed. Police say 1000 outside. Now chanting, “You work for us!” @UtahIndivisible @IndivisibleTeam pic.twitter.com/R9iDakiWrZ

— Kyung Lah (@KyungLahCNN) February 10, 2017

This was all before the actual event started. During the event, Chaffetz was grilled by multiple attendees over a wide range of subjects, from Bears Ears National Monument, to public lands, to the Trump Administration, to Betsy DeVos, to immigration.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, most of Chaffetz’s answers were drowned out by boos and chants like “Vote him out!” and “Do your job!” At one point, a frustrated Chaffetz said “If you want me to answer the question, give me more than five seconds to do it.”

But, nevertheless, Chaffetz’s frustrated constituents persisted, with attendee after attendee hitting their representative with tough questions. One notable grilling came from a grade-school girl:

Utah Congressman Chaffetz gets totally owned by 10 year old girl’s sick burn about science, refuses to answer her question & crowd goes wild pic.twitter.com/FxKUM2TklY

— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) February 10, 2017

And another came from an ex-teacher:

At rowdy town hall, ex-teacher asks Chaffetz — chair of House oversight — “what’s your line in the sand” for Trump? pic.twitter.com/8U7IkpZtsS

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another came from a cancer survivor who shared her story about the help she received from Planned Parenthood:

Cancer survivor — who relies on Planned Parenthood for care — asks Chaffetz: “Why are you trying to take [it] away?” pic.twitter.com/yexjMZ7wz6

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another–well, you get the idea.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the town hall lasted 75 minutes, which, according to multiple reports, was 40 minutes shorter than the event was supposed to be. Over the past couple of years, Chaffetz has been no stranger to public criticism. As Oversight Committee chairman, Chaffetz has received flack for relentlessly harping on Hillary Clinton’s connections with the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. He was also widely derided for taking to his Instagram to post a picture with a caption that many people saw as petty and unclassy:

So pleased she is not the President. I thanked her for her service and wished her luck. The investigation continues.

A photo posted by Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) on Jan 20, 2017 at 12:31pm PST

He is also known to have a dim understanding of how charts work:

Chaffetz was also widely criticized this past election for his flip-flop on President Donald Trump. After the Access Hollywood video was released, Chaffetz told Utah’s Fox 13 News that he couldn’t vote for Trump and look his daughter in the eye. Nineteen days later, presumably after looking his daughter in the eye, Chaffetz went on to say he would be voting for Trump, but would not be endorsing him:

I will not defend or endorse @realDonaldTrump, but I am voting for him. HRC is that bad. HRC is bad for the USA.

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) October 27, 2016

Chaffetz has yet to comment on what transpired last night.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Jason Chaffetz Flooded by Boos at Town Hall Meeting appeared first on Law Street.

There was a lot going on last night during the Super Bowl. But caught up in the hysteria–somewhere between people pointing out the game’s eery similarities to this past year’s election, the Tom Brady roasting, the Tom Brady adoration, the Lady Gaga jumping gifs, and the commercials that every American loves to hate or hates to love–a ton of people donated a ton of money to various organizations and charities around the country.

Using the hashtag #AGoodGame, people took to Twitter to pledge to donate a certain amount of money every time their team scored a touchdown or a field goal.

Watching #SuperBowl w/ democracy, civil rights, & environment in mind. #AGoodGame for @ACLU @PPact @splcenter @AWIOnline @NatlParkService pic.twitter.com/SZBYScSnah

— Amber Baillon (@Vambaillon) February 5, 2017

$100 to ACLU, $50 to Planned Parenthood and $50 to Standing Rock Sioux. #AGoodGame #SuperBowl @joshgondelman Thanks for the inspiration!

— Kristen Callisto (@HaleiwaHoney) February 6, 2017

5 Brady sacks = $100 to @splcenter, & $100 to @AlbanySAFEProj to help support survivors of sexual assault and DV #AGoodGame @joshgondelman https://t.co/9Ud0OdEtAn

— Bear Brian (@Brian___H) February 6, 2017

I have paid off my #AGoodGame promise to @SavetheChildren. My math looks like this: pic.twitter.com/komMvvdQ3h

— Owen King (@OwenKingwriter) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame Donating to Boston area women’s shelter @RosiesPlace pic.twitter.com/09WfXr8T94

— Estelle Nickleby (@estenickleby) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame was started by comedian Josh Gondelman, a writer for “Last Week Tonight” and a lifelong Patriots fan, who, on Thursday, tweeted his intention to support his team while rejecting the politics of some of the organization’s members.

I’ve been a Patriots fan for my whole life but I am way off on the political spectrum from much of the organization. https://t.co/3p3oVKzwkW

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

I’d like to be able to cheer for the team I grew up loving without cheerleading the Trump administration. Is this anyone else?

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

My friend @emma_sandoe and I thought that maybe people who feel ambivalent could donate to a good cause for every Pats FG or TD.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

It seems like a practical way to do a little good without staging a (small and ineffective) boycott of the Super Bowl.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

If you have political Patriots fan ambivalence, maybe pledge a little money to a good cause when they score using the hashtag: #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

Because of Tom Brady’s garbage politics, I’m donating $100 for every Patriots TD and $50 for every FG to the @NAACP_LDF. #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

The politics of some of the members of the Patriots organization has been a running sub-plot in the NFL this season. In September, a “Make America Great Again” hat was seen in the Patriots’ superstar quarterback Tom Brady’s locker. Brady has also made comments that have quietly alluded to his support of  President Donald Trump.

In November, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was criticized for sending a letter to Trump congratulating him on a “tremendous campaign” and touting him “the ultimate competitor and fighter.”  Additionally, Patriots owner Robert Kraft has described Trump as a “a very close friend” and was seen at Trump Tower a week after the election ended.

In an interview with Esquire, Gondelman said he would have felt “weird” not acknowledging the relationship these members of the Patriots have with Trump. “I have this large social media reach, and fortunately a little money I could donate to a good cause,” Gondelman said, “So it just felt like to do that would be putting my money where my mouth is.”

While donation totals from #AGoodGame have not been collected yet, last night’s surge of generosity follows a trend that has sprung up in response to some of Trump’s policies. At the end of the weekend Trump’s polarizing travel ban took effect, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported that the ACLU had received 356,306 donations totaling over $24.1 million–five times more than the organization usually receives in a whole year. Planned Parenthood also has seen a rise in donations. According to The Atlantic, Planned Parenthood received 80,000 donations in the three days after the election.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Anti-Trump Super Bowl Donation Campaign Raises Money for Various Organizations appeared first on Law Street.

Your topic of the day: voter fraud. It was a hot debate during the election, and President Donald Trump has falsely claimed “millions of people” voted illegally. Now the Supreme Court has announced it will not hear an appeal from Texas officials right now, who wanted to reinstate a controversial voter ID law. The law has been deemed unconstitutional by a lower court, but could still end up in front of the Supreme Court at a later date.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Was Serious About the Border Wall, Okays Controversial Pipelines

Today, President Donald Trump will begin taking steps toward actually building that wall along the Mexican border. This undertaking would be financed with federal money. But it’s unclear when the project will start, how long the wall would be, and where exactly the money would come from. This was the first campaign promise Trump made, back when he announced he would run for president in 2015. The wall proposal has been cheered by his fans and harshly criticized by his opponents. But the former Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Gil Kerlikowske, doesn’t see the point of a physical wall. “The border and migration issues are just unbelievably complex,” he said to CNN. “And a simple answer to a complex problem is most assuredly the wrong answer.”

Donald Trump could announce that the wall has been completed, Mexico paid for it, and it’s invisible.
20% of Americans would believe him.

— Luke Adams (@luketadams) January 25, 2017

Trump also cleared the Keystone and Dakota oil pipeline projects that had been halted by President Barack Obama. This doesn’t really come as a surprise as Trump has reportedly close ties with the gas industry, and even owned stocks in the company constructing the Dakota pipeline. The Dakota pipeline has been the focus of massive protests all fall and winter–it’s likely those protests will continue.

A few hundred people are outside the White House now protesting Trump’s executive actions on #KeystoneXL and #DakotaPipeline pic.twitter.com/TUjUmkecOr

— Kira Lerner (@kira_lerner) January 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Hi and welcome back after MLK weekend! As usual, Donald Trump has been active on Twitter, and has made some new enemies. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Arrests Made in Orlando and Istanbul Nightclub Shootings

The FBI has arrested the wife of Omar Mateen, the man who carried out the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub last June in Orlando. The police interrogated Noor Salman early on in the investigation, but didn’t charge her with any crimes until now. She is accused of obstructing the investigation and aiding and abetting Mateen by providing material support, which means police believe she knew about her husband’s plans. But Salman has always claimed she didn’t know anything and has reported that Mateen was physically and mentally abusive.

Noor Salman, wife of Orlando massacre shooter Omar Mateen, has been arrested for aiding and abetting https://t.co/a1Da4h2Ssw pic.twitter.com/z6aIgpxukV

— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) January 16, 2017

And in Turkey, police captured the suspect in the Istanbul New Year’s Eve nightclub attack, Abdulkadir Masharipov. The Uzbekistan citizen was still in Istanbul, hiding at a friend’s apartment with his four-year-old son, police said. Masharipov shot and killed 39 people and injured dozens more when he attacked the Reina nightclub. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack but it’s still unclear exactly how the terror organization contributed. Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said that the attack was “extremely planned and organized” and that it was carried out with the aid of an intelligence organization.

BREAKING: Main suspect in New Year’s Eve attack on #Reina nightclub in #Istanbul captured. – Reuters | #Turkey pic.twitter.com/fWP19qXmOx

— Middle East Monitor (@MiddleEastMnt) January 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

House Speaker Paul Ryan confirmed many women’s fears when he said that the Republican Party will defund Planned Parenthood, as part of a bill that aims to repeal Obamacare. The GOP is planning a “reconciliation bill,” which means that Democrats will be prevented from filibustering. Ryan spoke at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday, but didn’t provide any further details.

This is an important step for many Republicans as conservatives have tried for years to completely defund Planned Parenthood because it offers abortions. But, the organization also offers education, birth control, breast cancer screenings, STD tests, and more. This move could prove a challenge for some more moderate Republicans who previously have voted against defunding the organization. Many people reacted strongly to the news:

Ryan says that defunding Planned Parenthood will be included in ACA repeal. Because, let’s take away healthcare from as many as possible.

— Dante Atkins (@DanteAtkins) January 5, 2017

Some pointed out that it’s not a question of cutting off direct federal funding to Planned Parenthood. “Defunding” Planned Parenthood means cutting off reimbursement for the care it provides people who rely on Medicaid–a hard blow for low-income people.

Please pay attention to what “defunding” Planned Parenthood means: refusing to reimburse for their care offered to poor folks. https://t.co/muci1CSAGb

— Sarah Seltzer (@sarahmseltzer) January 5, 2017

Planned Parenthood launched a campaign Thursday to counteract the effort, and has planned protests, letters, and other actions over the coming months.

There’s no line item in a budget that goes to Planned Parenthood — simply reimbursement for care rendered, like other health providers. pic.twitter.com/SaTIpE9PUh

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 5, 2017

The President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said that it was no coincidence that the announcement came “the day after Vice President-elect Mike Pence, a long-time opponent of Planned Parenthood, held a closed-door meeting with Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership.” If the bill passes, Planned Parenthood would lose about $400 million in Medicaid money in the first year, and it would cut off care access for 400,000 women, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

House Pro-Choice Caucus on why #ACA is essential for repro health care. Co-Chair @RepDianaDeGette at podium. pic.twitter.com/JFXPzJA3mq

— Christine Grimaldi (@chgrimaldi) January 5, 2017

Richards said:

Defunding Planned Parenthood is dangerous to people’s health, it’s unpopular, and it would leave people across the country without care. They cannot afford to have basic reproductive health care attacked. Planned Parenthood has been here for 100 years and we’re going to be here for 100 more.

Though conservative Republicans have fought Planned Parenthood for years, it seems like a majority of Americans view Planned Parenthood positively—59 percent according to a Gallup poll from 2015. President-elect Donald Trump himself has changed his opinion a couple of times. After saying that the organization has helped millions of women, he later encouraged efforts to defund it. He also used to call himself “very pro-choice,” but is now against abortion. What is certain, is that Democrats, Planned Parenthood and many, many women will not give up without a fight.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paul Ryan: The GOP Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission issued a final notice on Tuesday to Planned Parenthood that the health services provider will be barred from receiving Medicaid funds. Planned Parenthood said 11,000 women who seek treatment in 34 clinics across the state will be affected. The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from when it was issued, unless a federal court denies the state’s move.

The group, which receives about $4 million each year in Medicaid funding, signaled that it will pursue an injunction in federal court. President of the Planned Parenthood Federation and Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards, called the decision a “cautionary tale for the rest of the nation,” and warned that if similar moves are made in other parts of the country, “it will be nothing less than a national health care disaster.”

Federal courts have stepped in to dismiss similar state-level rulings over the past year. Judges stopped attempts to defund clinics in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Kansas. And earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court saved a number of abortion clinics in Texas from shutting down. But this has been a drawn-out battle between Texas and Planned Parenthood, and it’s unclear how courts will rule in this case.

In July 2015, an anti-abortion group released covertly filmed and heavily-edited videos that claimed to show Planned Parenthood officials agreeing to sell fetus parts for profit. The group has vehemently waved off the videos as heavily doctored and highly inaccurate. Tuesday’s notice cited the videos as “the basis for [Planned Parenthood’s] termination” from Medicaid. It also said the group fails to provide care “in a professionally competent, safe, legal and ethical manner.”

“Texans expect that when taxpayer dollars are granted to health care providers, it is only to those who demonstrate that the health and safety of their patients come before a profit motive that puts women at greater risk,” said a statement from the office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican.

Planned Parenthood sued Texas in November 2015, when the state first signaled it would be cutting its access to federal money, a move that was also in response to the controversial videos released a few months prior. That case is still pending. A wider effort to defund Planned Parenthood could come early next year, when President-elect Donald Trump takes office. While he has expressed support for some of the services the group provides, Trump’s appointment for health secretary is Tom Price, a vocal opponent of Planned Parenthood.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas is Ending Medicaid Funding for Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Self-proclaimed feminist and TV-show creator Lena Dunham has become known for her controversial statements, but the latest one is pretty bad. In the most recent episode of her podcast “Women of the Hour,” she said she wished she had had an abortion. The episode was centered on the issue of abortion stigma and Dunham recounted a visit to a Planned Parenthood center in Texas many years ago. She said that a woman there asked her to join a project with women sharing their stories about abortion. Dunham said in the podcast:

I sort of jumped. ‘I haven’t had an abortion,’ I told her. I wanted to make it really clear to her that as much as I was going out and fighting for other women’s options, I myself had never had an abortion.

Lena Dunham said the statement below, THEN concluded with: “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had” #Context pic.twitter.com/cfdpzW2FnI

— Girls Really Rule. (@girlsreallyrule) December 20, 2016

Her own reaction made her realize that even though she was fighting for a woman’s right to choose, her automatic reflex was to make sure people knew she hadn’t had an abortion, as if it’s something to be ashamed of. It seems like her comment in the podcast was meant to highlight that if she had had one herself, she would know on a personal level what she’s fighting for. Or maybe, that there’s nothing wrong with choosing to have one. But her quote, “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had,” sounded way too literal. As the podcast content spread across the internet, many people reacted with outrage.

@jtLOL Normally I roll my eyes at Dunham’s silliness, but this made me so angry. An abortion isn’t something you get bc it’s “on trend.”

— Jingle Jess (@TheSenator) December 20, 2016

I can’t even imagine how offensive Lena Dunham’s comments are to women who actually had to go through abortions

— KFC (@KFCBarstool) December 20, 2016

lena dunham treats serious situations as a punchline to her transparent jokes no ones laughing at, then labels it “activism”

— emily angelica (@existentiaIly) December 21, 2016

On Tuesday, Dunham posted a long status on Instagram apologizing for the clumsy comments. She said that her story was meant to:

[…] tell a multifaceted story about reproductive choice in America, to explain the many reasons women do or don’t choose to have children and what bodily autonomy really means. I’m so proud of the medley of voices in the episode. I truly hope a distasteful joke on my part won’t diminish the amazing work of all the women who participated.

She said that she would never trivialize the emotional and physical challenges a woman goes through when making the choice to terminate a pregnancy. The apology might be sincere and the comments simply a clumsy way of expressing herself, but it’s pretty important to consider how things you say publicly will be interpreted if you claim to be a feminist role model for many young women.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lena Dunham Apologizes for “I Wish I Had an Abortion” Comment appeared first on Law Street.

State and local governments are barred from withholding federal family-planning grants “for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services,” according to a new rule by the Department of Health and Human Services. As President Barack Obama’s days in office are waning, so are his chances to secure federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other community health clinics. The rule will go into effect two days before Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20.

Many anticipate President-elect Trump, and a Republican-controlled Congress, will attempt to dismantle and defund abortion-providing clinics that currently receive federal money. Nearly half of Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics do not perform abortions. Proposed in September, the rule clarifies the requirements for states when distributing federal money meant for clinics that provide family-planning services like contraception, STD treatment, cancer screenings, and abortions.

“This rule will strengthen access to essential services like cancer screenings and contraception for some of the most vulnerable patients in this country,” said Dr. Karen Scott, Chief Medical Officer of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. “Public comments showed overwhelming support for finalizing the rule, which clarifies that all organizations able to provide these services should be eligible to compete for funds.”

In 2015, according to the press release from HHS, 91 grants were distributed to nearly 4,000 clinics who provided services to more than four million patients. Current federal law dictates that no government-funds can go directly toward abortions, except in cases or rape or incest, or when the procedure would be lifesaving. But as a dozen or so Republican-led states have sought to block Planned Parenthood and other clinics from seeing any government funding, the new rule should ensure that clinics are not underfunded for political reasons.

A key question moving forward will be how the Trump administration decides to handle the new rule. For one, Trump has expressed support for Planned Parenthood, at least for its services other than abortions. But he also selected Tom Price, who has supported efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, as the next health secretary. Time will reveal the fate of the new ruling, but according to HHS, rolling it back would be a time-consuming process that would require a joint resolution from both chambers of Congress, as well as approval from the incoming president.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HHS Rule Bars States from Withholding Federal Family-Planning Grants appeared first on Law Street.

Ohio could soon adopt the nation’s strictest abortion legislation. A bill sent to Governor John Kasich would outlaw abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected–which is as early as six weeks after conception.

The state’s Republican-led House and Senate voted in favor of the so-called “heartbeat bill” Tuesday night, and now it awaits Kasich’s signature.

The measure, which was tacked on last minute to House Bill 493, an unrelated child abuse bill, would not exempt abortions in cases of rape or incest, but does include an exception for an abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman.

The amended bill passed in the Senate with a 21-10 vote, and then again in the House with 56-39–with votes largely following party lines.

If Kasich signs the bill, or if he does nothing in 10 days, the bill will go into effect early next year.

Physicians could face a year in prison if they perform an abortion after a heartbeat is detected or if they fail to check for one before a procedure.

*wakes up*

*trump is person of the year, abortion basically banned in ohio*

*goes back 2 sleep sets snooze for 2020*

— Jessica Samakow (@jsam1126) December 7, 2016

1/3 Well, a 6 week abortion ban just passed the House in Ohio. FYI, you miss your period at 4 weeks pregnant. https://t.co/lAmrVUdHIQ

— Jessica Hische (@jessicahische) December 7, 2016

In February, Kasich labeled himself “pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother.” Since he became Ohio governor in 2011, Kasich has signed 17 anti-abortion measures into law. This includes a measure that helped defund Planned Parenthood, and another that banned abortions when a pregnancy is 20 weeks along unless a doctor determines a fetus cannot live outside the womb.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio has already said it will lead a legal battle against the bill if it passes.

If @JohnKasich signs #HeartbeatBill, we’ll sue. #20WeekBan may pass as early as tmrw. Both are unconstitutional & should veto. #StoptheBans

— ACLU of Ohio (@acluohio) December 7, 2016

At least two other “heartbeat bills” in Arkansas and North Dakota were found unconstitutional in federal court.

Kasich has not indicated whether he will veto the bill or sign it.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ohio’s ‘Heartbeat’ Abortion Bill Waits for Governor John Kasich’s Signature appeared first on Law Street.

Friday marked the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment’s enactment, the provision that blocks federal money from being used for abortions for women who are covered by Medicaid. The provision, named after Republican Henry Hyde, makes it financially impossible for many low-income women to have an abortion. This leaves them with the options of having an illegal, dangerous procedure, using money that was meant for something else such as rent or food, or carrying on with an unwanted pregnancy.

According to pro-life activists, the policy has saved the lives of “millions of Americans.” The director of National Right to Life, Douglas Johnson, has said it “has proven itself to be the greatest domestic abortion reduction law ever enacted by Congress.”

On Friday social media was filled with conservative opinions saying the Hyde Amendment saved American lives.

Because of the #HydeAmendment, over 2 million people did not lose their lives to abortion. #HelloHyde #HydeSavesLives

— Liberty Pike (@Liberty_Pike) September 30, 2016

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence wants to make the Hyde Amendment a permanent law.

40 years ago, the #HydeAmendment was enacted—a milestone in the fight for life. We need a leader who will protect the rights of the unborn.

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) September 30, 2016

But recently more support for abandoning the policy has developed. Hillary Clinton–who also received Planned Parenthood’s first-ever presidential primary endorsement–has spoken out against the provision and made repealing it part of her campaign, saying that abortion is a fundamental human right.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment. @HillaryClinton agrees – it’s time to #BeBoldEndHyde: https://t.co/R9Jh68Xdz5 pic.twitter.com/GMtrBeBMEy

— Madam President (@Madam_President) September 30, 2016

Planned Parenthood released a statement Friday calling for an end to the provision.

Every woman—no matter how much money she makes or who provides her insurance—should be able to access the full-range of reproductive health care, including abortion. Every woman should be able to make her own decisions about pregnancy based on her own unique circumstances, and have the resources she needs to exercise that decision with autonomy and dignity.

And many opinions were voiced on Twitter.

Thank you @RepDianaDeGette for sponsoring the EACH Woman Act to repeal the Hyde Amendment. #copolitics #BeBoldEndHyde pic.twitter.com/HF5Dt4J6KN

— Gena Ozols (@genaozols) September 30, 2016

Learning how Hyde amendment hurts low-income communities #WeWontWait2016 @fullfrontalfem @KierraDC @jgonzalez_rojas pic.twitter.com/LPp3MjCDTP

— Luna Ranjit (@LunaRanjit) September 20, 2016

The women affected by the Hyde Amendment are also the ones who are most likely to experience an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Ending it would mean increased equality and access to reproductive care for all women.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Hyde Amendment Turns 40–Is it Time to Let it Go? appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, an appeals court in Indiana heard arguments for Purvi Patel’s appeal. Patel is a 35-year old woman who received a 20-year prison sentence for feticide after she terminated her own pregnancy in 2013.

Patel was convicted by a jury in February of 2015, and so far has spent over one year of her sentence in an Indiana women’s prison. She is reportedly the first American woman to be sentenced to feticide for attempting to perform her own abortion.

What has complicated Patel’s case is the fact that many of the details still remain ambiguous. What is known is that Patel figured out that she was pregnant through a relationship with a coworker, and feared backlash from her religious Hindu family. Realizing that she had most likely passed the window of time in which she could have received a medical abortion from Planned Parenthood, she ordered some pills online and took them in an attempt to terminate the pregnancy.

After the pills began to cause complications, she arrived at the emergency room, bleeding heavily but no longer pregnant. When pressed further by doctors, she admitted that she left the remains of her abortion in a bag behind a Target store, but alleged that the infant was stillborn.

What remains at debate is whether or not the infant was alive when Patel attempted to terminate the pregnancy; during her trial, prosecutors were able to argue that the infant was still alive at the time that she took the pills, and that it would have survived outside of the womb as she was likely far enough along. This issue is essentially what led to her controversial conviction, and was at the center of Monday’s appeal.

Patel inadvertently became a symbol for women’s health and abortion rights advocates, many of whom rallied behind her prior to Monday’s hearing. As #FreePurvi trended, individuals and groups announced their solidarity with Patel and displayed frustrations with a system that would put such a harsh sentence on the termination of a pregnancy–essentially criminalizing abortion.

Any one of us could have been Purvi Patel. How else will state governments punish women for their reproductive decisions? #FreePurvi

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) May 23, 2016

Punishing and criminalizing women for their #pregnancy outcomes does not result in better maternal, fetal or newborn health. #FreePurvi

— National Partnership (@NPWF) May 23, 2016

Purvi Patel became the first woman to go to jail for terminating her own pregnancy. We are with her in solidarity today as she faces appeal.

— Lilith Fund (@lilithfund) May 23, 2016

today a woman appeals her 20 year prison sentence for ending her own pregnancy, by herself, in total isolation. 20 years yall #freepurvi

— Kebé (@JustKebe) May 23, 2016

This case makes me profoundly sad. Sad for Purvi. Sad for every pregnant person who is being criminalized bc they’re not perfect. #FreePurvi

— Imani Gandy (@AngryBlackLady) May 23, 2016

Many other reactions highlighted the idea that she was a minority woman, increasing her vulnerability:

Immigrant women shouldn’t have to fear arrest or jail because of pregnancy outcome or seeking abortion. #FreePurvi pic.twitter.com/WNll9D6IWj

— COLOR (@colorlatina) May 23, 2016

Pregnant women, esp women of color, are being harmed by laws used to criminalize pregnancy outcomes. #FreePurvi pic.twitter.com/UQGQVi6ypJ

— SisterSong (@SisterSong_WOC) May 23, 2016

Must analyze anti-blackness & sexual repression to see how a dark SouthAsian wmn goes to ER after miscarriage & ends up in prison #FreePurvi

— asha rosa (@ashapoesis) May 23, 2016

It remains to be seen what impact that this appeal will have on her conviction; MSNBC reports that a decision could take months. In the meantime, it looks like Patel has certainly rallied the support of advocates and ordinary individuals who seek to #FreePurvi.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post #FreePurvi: Women’s Health Advocates Rally Around Woman Convicted of Feticide appeared first on Law Street.

Planned Parenthood filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday against Ohio’s Health Department because of a new law that will cut down funding for the health organization. The law is supposed to come into effect on May 23 and will affect the $1.3 million that Planned Parenthood gets from the state of Ohio–the state is tasked with handing out both federal and state funds to relevant programs and organizations. While this money is only a small portion of Planned Parenthood’s budget, according to the lawsuit, several thousands of patients could miss out on cancer screenings, HIV tests, and more.

Governor John Kasich signed the bill back in February. In the lawsuit, the Ohio branches of Planned Parenthood claim that the law is mere punishment because they provide abortion services, an accusation that Kasich’s office hasn’t commented on yet. They also say that it is a violation of equal protection laws, since it doesn’t treat Planned Parenthood in the same way as other healthcare institutions.

The lawsuit has spurred a variety of different reactions on Twitter:

Planned Parenthood wastes tax payer's money with another frivolous lawsuit in #Ohio ~ Proabort attorney… https://t.co/6IFQSTMNmn

— KeepLifeLegal (@KeepLifeLegal) May 11, 2016

Planned Parenthood sues over Ohio law that strips funding https://t.co/CWrqwrPL1o #10TV pic.twitter.com/rom4TV9jiB

— 10TV.com (@10TV) May 11, 2016

According to Reuters, Planned Parenthood has filed a total of 15 lawsuits in a little less than a year (since mid-2015). The influx of lawsuits started when a bunch of anti-abortion activists released fake video footage supposedly showing Planned Parenthood officials trying to sell fetal tissue. The video, that actually contained a photo of a stillborn baby and not an aborted fetus, was proved heavily edited and “thoroughly discredited.”

Abortion is still a very sensitive and polarizing subject in the U.S. Forty-one states have some kind of restriction in place on when women are able to get an abortion, meaning only nine states have not specified any prohibition on timing at all. According to Planned Parenthood, three out of 10 American women have an abortion at some point in their life.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Planned Parenthood Sues Ohio Over Funding Cuts appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican presidential candidate that many had previously hailed as the most moderate GOP contender signed a bill Sunday to prohibit the Ohio state health department from contracting with entities that perform or promote abortions.

John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio and presidential hopeful, fulfilled his promise to defund Planned Parenthood, even though the healthcare provider is not specifically named in the bill. However slashing funds is one way that lawmakers plan to get rid of the healthcare provider, which just happens to refer patients to and provide abortion services.

The law will prevent roughly $1.3 million in funding from the Ohio State Health Department from going to STD/HIV testing, general health screenings, and prevention of violence against women. 

@CNN @JohnKasich pic.twitter.com/1xZb2a42uX

— Venisha (@Venishhhha) February 22, 2016

It should be noted that state and federal laws already prohibit taxpayer funds from going towards abortion services, except in the cases of rape, incest, and “therapeutic” abortions (medical diagnosis to save the mother via abortion).

@CNN @JohnKasich How about letting the women in this country dictate things?

— Bomber Doobie (@Bomber_Doobie) February 22, 2016

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards responded to the news, not surprisingly, unhappy and disappointed.

“It’s clear Kasich has no regard for women’s health or lives, and will stop at nothing to block health care for the tens of thousands of Ohioans who rely on Planned Parenthood,” Richards said in a statement. She added that it would have “devastating consequences for women across Ohio.”

While many see Kasich as the great moderate of the election season, his voting record when it comes to abortion says otherwise. As the Huffington Post has reported:

Just months after becoming governor, Kasich signed a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless the fetus is nonviable. In 2013, Kasich signed a budget that stripped roughly $1.4 million in family planning funds from Planned Parenthood, required abortion providers to perform ultrasounds on patients seeking abortions and allowed rape crisis centers to be stripped of their public funds if they referred victims to abortion providers, among other measures. The budget also blocked public hospitals from entering into transfer agreements for medical emergencies with abortion clinics, threatening clinics with closure if they couldn’t get a private hospital to enter into those agreements. Because private hospitals often have religious affiliations, this arrangement often wasn’t possible.

In all, nearly half of Ohio’s abortion clinics have closed since Kasich took office.

Kasich’s gubernatorial office spokesman Joe Andrews responded in a statement with:

The Ohio Department of Health has at least 150 other sub-grantees and contractors for the affected grants and projects addressing such issues as new born babies, infant mortality, expectant mothers, violence against women, and minority HIV/AIDS,” the statement said. “ODH will reallocate funding from ineligible providers under the new law to other currently eligible providers, ranging from local health departments and community organizations to hospitals and universities. These organizations will be required to submit proposals in order to receive funding.

The issues that arise from Kasich’s signing of the bill go past clinics not having proper funding. This goes as far as to cause issues with insurers and hospitals. As Cleveland.com reports, “…the Columbus Public Health department said it would be unable to contract with any Columbus hospital because they either provide abortion services, contract with abortion clinics, or refer patients to abortion services.”

In addition, Texas is a great example of what can happen when you remove a major women’s health service from Medicaid plans. Recently, women in Texas stopped using the most effective forms of contraceptives, and the birth rate rose (on the taxpayer’s tab), according to a study done by researchers from the University of Texas at Austin. According to researchers, the number of claims for long-acting contraception dropped by more than a third and births paid for by Medicaid shot up by 27 percent.

Of course, there is no way of saying definitively that this will happen in Ohio as well, but it would not come as a shock. As Guttmacher Institute’s Elizabeth Nash stated, “It’s one of the states people look to, to see what the next restriction is going to look like.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ohio Governor John Kasich Signs Bill that Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of abortion, Carly Fiorina, reportedly benefitted financially while on the board for a company producing vaccines using fetal stem cells taken from aborted fetuses, according to corporate documents obtained by Al Jazeera America.

Fiorina served on the board of directors for Merck & Co., an international pharmaceutical company, from April 1999 to December 2000, according to SEC filings for both 1999 and 2000. She was paid at least $83,000 for her two years and was eligible for an additional $1,200 for each board meeting she attended.

Fiorina has been very open when discussing her stance on abortion. During one of the first Republican debates in September, she challenged Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and everyone in America to watch a non-existent portion of the–at the time—shocking sting videos created by the Center For Medical Progress, a known anti-abortion group.

On January 25, two of the activists from the videos were indicted in Texas for issues regarding purchasing human organs and an additional charge for tampering with a government record.

Fiorina has continuously said on and off the debate stage that she wants to defund Planned Parenthood, a non-profit that provides healthcare services, including abortion, but declined to comment on whether it is worth shutting down the government for, which has been a big budgetary issue brought up by many candidates during this election cycle.

Other candidates have also discussed using fetal stem cells from aborted fetuses. Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz R-Texas has supported the John Paul II Medical Research Institute, which conducts ALS research that “respects human life,” according to a statement made on Cruz’s Facebook page. 

According to the Los Angeles Times, during Fiorina’s 2010 run for the California Senate, she was seemingly in favor of using aborted fetal stem cells for vaccines. During a 2010 debate she clarified her stance, saying, “It is when embryos are produced for the purposes of destruction, for the purposes of stem cell research that I have a great deal of difficulty.”

It is unknown as to whether or not Fiorina was aware that aborted fetal stem cells were being used to make the vaccines, but it’ll probably be brought into the discussion on one of the stages at the next Republican debate scheduled for February 6.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Carly Fiorina Earned Money from Company that Uses Aborted Fetal Stem Cells appeared first on Law Street.

In a promising turn of events, the investigation into Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast ended with an indictment, but not of the organization.

A grand jury in Houston, Texas, handed down an indictment of the two Center for Medical Progress (CMP) employees who slandered Planned Parenthood through doctored videos earlier this year. David Daleiden, the director of the Center for Medical Progress, and CMP employee Sandra Merritt were indicted on charges of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor charge in relation to purchasing human organs.

The news was quick to incite reactions, both from pro-lifers outraged that justice had been served:

I will be a champion of the unborn and will fight to defund rogue groups like Planned Parenthood. Join the fight: https://t.co/KKUDfyWyoc

— Dr. Ben Carson (@RealBenCarson) January 26, 2016

Pro-life investigators respond to grand jury indictment: #PlannedParenthood is guilty,not us https://t.co/83jNUpAime pic.twitter.com/mO3AeDBnGU

— The Patriot (@ThePatriot143) January 26, 2016

And by pro-choice advocates standing behind Planned Parenthood and this major step forward in women’s healthcare rights:

Pro-tip: Don’t manipulate info about #reprohealth or you might get indicted: https://t.co/Pi9qXKwXZP

— EMILY’s List (@emilyslist) January 26, 2016

How the nationwide crusade against planned parenthood is failing https://t.co/djPcUVYxxT pic.twitter.com/16g6Wvnc5H

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) January 26, 2016

Cecile Richards, the director of Planned Parenthood, pointed out that states investigating her organization have failed to find any illegal activity.

In addition to Harris County, officials in 10 states have concluded investigations – each one has cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) January 25, 2016

But what does this indictment mean for the future of Planned Parenthood, and for women’s rights on a broader scale? The damage done by those videos is irreparable, and pro-life politicians are still attempting to defund the organization despite all the evidence against their arguments.

What this means is that, at least from a legal standpoint, the battle for reproductive rights will continue to be won. Planned Parenthood, it comes as no surprise, is not guilty of anything except providing affordable healthcare. The organization is more than abortions.

But what about politics? Fear-mongering and emotional appeals are strong campaign tactics, as we have seen from the GOP candidates and by the fact that a bill to defund Planned Parenthood made it all the way to Obama’s desk. The blatant facts seem to have little effect on politicians who let emotion and religion guide their decisions.

What pro-life advocates and politicians need to understand is that Planned Parenthood does not exist for abortions alone, and pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Just because the government funds a clinic that offers abortion as a service, does not mean it endorses abortion itself. Pro-choice literally means pro-each woman should make her own decision about her own body. And while conservative state governments will continue to attempt things like “All Lives Matter” acts to kick reproductive rights back a century, at least this indictment shows there really is no basis for such legislation.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indictment of Pro-Life Extremists a Positive Step Forward appeared first on Law Street.

In July, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress released a series of videos that implied that Planned Parenthood profited from the sale of fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood has long maintained that the videos were edited in a misleading fashion, and that the fetal donation program was entirely legal, the videos have been widely debunked, and multiple investigations have turned up no wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. But as the videos have become an increasingly popular political tool, and debates about the federal funding of Planned Parenthood continue, Planned Parenthood is officially fighting back by filing a federal lawsuit against the Center for Medical Progress.

Planned Parenthood is suing the Center for Medical Progress on a few different grounds, including illegally conspiring in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), mail fraud, trespassing, invasions of privacy, and illegal recording.  A fake fetal tissue procurement company called “BioMax” is also named in the lawsuit.

Planned Parenthood is arguing that the release of the videos created a dangerous environment for its employees–multiple individuals who work for the nonprofit have been threatened with bodily harm. There was also a deadly shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, that left three people dead. The shooter, Robert Lewis Dear, has made presumed references to the videos and has claimed that he is a “warrior for babies.”

Chief legal counsel for Planned Parenthood’s California affiliates, Beth Parker, stated:

Planned Parenthood staff has been demonized, the providers have been threatened with death, picketed at their homes, bombarded with hate mail, and forced to move or go into hiding.

Kathy Kneer, CEO of Planned Parenthood’s California affiliates also made a strong statement about the importance of the lawsuit, stating:

CMP’s reckless and dangerous actions have created a poisonous environment that fuels political attacks on access to reproductive health care and feeds threats against our health centers. We’re going on the offensive to expose this fraud for what it is and hold the people behind it accountable – in order to prevent further harassment of our patients and staff and protect access to the preventive and reproductive health care Planned Parenthood provides to millions of people each year.

The Center for Medical Progress has released a statement, essentially saying that it doesn’t have anything to fear with the lawsuit. David Daleiden, the leader behind the videos stated: “Game on” upon hearing about the lawsuit. But while it probably won’t help with the constant political fights that await Planned Parenthood in the future, the organization is officially out for vengeance against the Center for Medical Progress, and justifiably so.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Planned Parenthood Sues the Center for Medical Progress Over “Sting Videos” appeared first on Law Street.

The right to privacy has always weighed heavily in the legalization of abortion. In the landmark Roe v Wade (1973) decision, the Supreme Court granted women the right to an abortion  under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. But, on January 1, a new regulatory law passed in North Carolina. The law requires doctors to send the ultrasounds of women receiving abortions between the 16-20th week of their pregnancies to the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), as a way to ensure abortions happen before the 20th week of pregnancy. The law leaves the doctors responsible for leaving off the patient’s identifiable information. But those in opposition of the law question its purpose and criticize its breach of privacy.

Since abortion became legal in 1973, states have been tasked with a responsibility to balance the rights of women’s choices and the rights of potential human life. A spokesman for Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina suggests the new law protects women by ensuring medical professionals use proper safety precautions in procedures. However, at the same time it denies these women and their doctors privacy.

Many citizens of North Carolina feel betrayed by the bill because of a promise Governor McCrory made during his campaign. During a 2012 debate McCrory said he would not sign legislation on further abortion restrictions while governor. Yet, the new law also extends the waiting period for abortions from 24 hours to 72 hours.

Melissa Reed is president of Planned Parenthood Votes! South Atlantic, and has been vocal in opposition to this law. She contends that state officials already have access to ultrasounds and other patient statistical data through yearly inspections. That method of yearly inspections makes more sense than the law being enacted. Under the new law, the ultrasounds, along with the estimated gestational age, will be checked by a board certified obstetrician in the DHHS for compliance with the 20 week provision. Some tax payers don’t want state money to go to abortion, but they are instead now funding the paycheck of the person responsible for reviewing the ultrasounds of thousands of women.

People in support of the new legislation find solace in the protection of fetuses older than 20 weeks. The Daily Journal quotes Tami Fitzgerald, an anti abortion advocate in North Carolina, stating,

The whole purpose of this ultrasound provision is to be a check on the abortion industry to make sure they’re not violating the law and rights of these unborn babies that are older than 20 weeks to live.

Per the Supreme Court, states must weigh privacy against other legitimate interests–protecting women’s health and potential human life. But regulation on the part of protecting potential human life can be performed in a less abrasive way than mandating the collection of intimate health records. It undermines the privacy for which the Supreme Court granted protection to women for abortions in the first place.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s New Abortion Regulations are Fracturing Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

Feminism fights for political, social and economic equality for every gender, and this year we saw several amazing examples of that fight. It was a year of struggle, but if feminists in 2015 have proven anything, it’s that we will always push back against anything–or anyone–who tries to bar any group of people from their basic human rights. Here are just a few of my favorite feminist moments from 2015.

1. Celebrities stand up for equal pay.

Image courtesy of [Disney/ABC Television Group/Craig Sjodin via Flickr]

Back in February, the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress, Patricia Arquette, took her opportunity on stage to deliver a powerful message about the wage gap:

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

While her comments after she left the stage have been called into question, her main point is clear: the wage gap exists and it’s time we acknowledge and fix it.

Then, in October, Jennifer Lawrence called Hollywood out on the fact that she earned less than her male co-stars, and realized her own insecurity with asking for what she deserved:

I didn’t want to seem ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’ At the time, that seemed like a fine idea, until I saw the payroll on the Internet and realized every man I was working with definitely didn’t worry about being ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’

Her fear of being judged for her confidence is something many women struggle with. It is high time we stop apologizing for demanding equality.

2. Feminist Democrats announce their candidacies for President.

It came as no surprise when Hillary Clinton submitted her name for the presidential ballot. Needless to say, America’s first female president would have the potential to move the country rapidly towards true gender equality. If fellow female candidate, Republican Carly Fiorina, had proven herself to be a champion for equal rights, I’d be cheering her on, too. Unfortunately, she has demonstrated that not every woman believes in feminist ideals.

And let’s not forget that men can be feminists as well. Martin O’Malley, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, has fought for not only women’s rights, but equal rights for people of all genders and sexual orientation.

Welcome to MD @MittRomney. FYI, in our State we don’t try to take away women’s health services. We work to expand them.

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) March 21, 2012

Hillary’s main competition for the Democratic bid, Senator Bernie Sanders, was asked by the Washington Post if he is a feminist, to which he replied, “Yes.” His long political career certainly shows that:

In terms of women’s rights, you’re looking at somebody who, to the best of my knowledge, has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record. You’re looking at somebody who’s made a cornerstone, a key part of my campaign, the need for at least three months of family and medical leave; somebody who is fighting to raise the minimum wage over a two year period to $15 an hour, which will benefit everybody, but women actually more than men; somebody who regards it as enormously important that we fight for pay equity for women…So I think if people look at my record, I think they will see somebody who has had a lifelong record of support for the women’s movement and women’s rights.

So whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for POTUS, equal rights will certainly be at the forefront of their platform, and that is truly exciting.

3. “‘Playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

The women of the United States national soccer team took on the Japanese in July for the final game of the FIFA World Cup–and they won. It was the most-watched, televised soccer game ever, male or female, in the history of the U.S.

While honoring the team a few months later, President Obama sang their praises, saying, “This team taught all of America’s children that ‘playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

And of course, he’s right. Now, if only those female athletes would get the same pay as their male counterparts.

4. Same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

June was a historic month for marriage equality, when the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Despite push back from people like the county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, justice prevailed and now people of any gender can marry whoever they want to.

5. “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

Image courtesy of Charlotte Cooper via Flickr

The battle to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood has been raging for months, with men and women alike fighting tooth and nail to prove that the medical institution is more than just abortions. Thanks to a slanderous smear campaign of doctored videos earlier in the year, Planned Parenthood’s use of funding and ethical practices were called into question. That campaign was later proved to be based on false claims, and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards valiantly took on the opposition in a brilliant testimony, but the damage had already been done. House Republicans have attempted numerous times to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal support, which would surely cripple the organization that has helped millions of men and women with reproductive and basic health services. Planned Parenthood supporters took to the streets and to social media to show their support, with rallies, parades and campaigns like #ShoutYourAbortion. The outpouring of people standing behind Planned Parenthood proves that the Republican-controlled Congress does not have the interests of most Americans at heart, and brings the issue of reproductive rights to the forefront.

6. Study proves men and women are wired the same. 

In a study published in November in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers have proven that there is no difference between the brains of men and women:

Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.

They found that, while some characteristics are more common in one gender over the other, those characteristics are not exclusive to one gender, and the brain is made up of complex “mosaics.” Despite an age-old belief, the human brain cannot be classified based on gender. Men and women have the same brains.

7. The U.S. Military opens all combat roles to women.

In August, women everywhere cheered on the success of the first two female soldiers to complete the Army’s elite ranger school. They proved that, at least some women, can handle the same physical and mental challenges that men have been dealing with as rangers for decades. However, unlike the male graduates, the female soldiers could not apply for combat roles in the 75th Ranger Regiment.

That changed in early December, when Defense Secretary Carter made the historic announcement that all roles in all military branches will now be open to women.

The announcement was not met with support across the board, by some in both the civilian population and by some already in the armed forces. Many called into question the physical abilities of females, pointing out that women are held to a lower physical fitness standard, and even going so far as to allege that females in certain combat positions would serve as distractions to their male colleagues.

These arguments are absolutely reflective of the inherent misogyny in American society and the gender stereotypes to which many still cling to. Of course, standards should not be lowered to let women into special forces. Let all the men and women going for those roles succeed or fail based on skill. If men cannot control themselves around female counterparts, that is their fault, not the fault of women.

The pushback is unfortunate, but the opposition will not change the course of the announcement. Despite requests for some positions in the Navy and Marines to still remain closed to females, if women meet the standards set to obtain those roles, they will be able to serve in them. It will not be easy, but women have proven time and again that we can overcome adversity and oppression.

Whether it’s fighting for your country, serving as a politician, acting in Hollywood, playing on professional sports teams, or even raising a family, 2015 has proven that anyone of any gender can do anything.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2015’s Best Feminist Moments appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top stories last week included more news on Planned Parenthood and ISIS, as well as some bizarre custody drama involving a former TV talk show host. The number one story looked at a hilarious open letter to ISIS written by an Irish comedian, that quickly went viral on social media. The number two story revealed that a judge denied Sherri Shepherd’s request to cut legal ties with a baby she and her now ex-husband had via surrogacy. The last top story discussed how politicians are ultimately the ones to blame for the hateful Planned Parenthood rhetoric we see today. ICYMI check out these top stories below.

#1: Finchie Cova: Irish Comedian Pens Hilarious Open Letter to ISIS

A 21-year-old Irish comedian has skyrocketed to internet fame after posting a hilarious long-winded open letter to ISIS that has gone viral. Finchie Cova penned the 800+ word letter on his Facebook after the terrorist organization announced last week that it plans to attack Ireland, labeling it “Europe’s weakest link.” Read the full story here.

#2: Sorry Sherri Shepherd, But You Can’t Renege Your Baby’s Surrogacy

A Pennsylvania appeals court has found television personality Sherri Shepherd legally responsible for a child born to a surrogate that she and her ex-husband hired before they divorced. According to USA Today, the former actress must now continue to pay $4,100 a month in child support to her ex-husband Lamar Sally for little Lamar Jr. Read the full story here.

#3: Politicians To Blame For Hateful Planned Parenthood Rhetoric

“No more baby parts.” That is what Robert Lewis Dear, the gunman who killed three people and injured several more at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, allegedly told authorities following his arrest. We can assume that the shooter was referring to the smear campaign of videos released earlier this year by the Center for Medical Progress. These videos have been analyzed multiple times and have been proven to be doctored, falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood sells parts from aborted fetuses for profit. Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts. So why did Dear say “no more baby parts”? Read the full story here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of The Week appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one person who is sure to always hit us where it’s relevant, it’s Shonda Rhimes. On the mid-season finale of “Scandal” (spoilers ahead, for those who aren’t caught up), Mellie filibusters in front of the Senate for nearly a full day in order to ensure that Planned Parenthood’s funding isn’t considered discretionary, and Olivia aborts Fitz’s child. Even with the trigger warning at the beginning of the episode, viewers were surprised with where the plot took them.

All of this aired just eight days before a gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It occurred in the midst of a lawsuit against the state of Texas for trying to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding. And it tackled a real-life issue that has been discussed with increasing fervor since the fall—defunding Planned Parenthood altogether. Planned Parenthood remains front-page news, which is rare for an organization that has been around for nearly one hundred years. Yet it stays relevant, and will continue to stay relevant in mainstream media as long as the country is polarized by the subject of abortion. So, here’s a breakdown of all the latest Planned Parenthood stories, and what they mean for the future of the organization and healthcare.

Is Planned Parenthood going to be defunded?

In short, as of right now, it’s hard to say whether Planned Parenthood will still be funded next year.

There are two ways that Republicans could go about trying to defund Planned Parenthood. There is a bill that just passed the Senate that would both remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood for one year and repeal part of the Affordable Care Act. This bill had already passed in the House of Representatives. However, given that it’s part of a bill to repeal Obamacare, President Obama is expected to veto it.

So, if that doesn’t work, it is possible that the defunding would be tacked onto the spending bill that has to pass by December 11 in order for the government to continue functioning.

Why defund Planned Parenthood?

The woman’s health organization has been under fire since several videos were released in July 2015 that imply that baby parts are sold by the organization. Since then, it has been proven that these videos were manipulated by an anti-abortion organization, but the damage had already been done. The president of Planned Parenthood has since had to testify before a congressional hearing, and the threat to defund the organization has become very real.

What would happen if Planned Parenthood is defunded?

If Planned Parenthood is defunded, the results could be disastrous. While it is anyone’s right to decide what side they fall on in the ongoing and ever-relevant debate about abortion, that is only a fraction of the work that Planned Parenthood clinics do across the country. According to its own statistics, 80 percent of its work is focused on preventing unintended pregnancies. Aside from that, it also provides 4.5 million STI tests and treatments each year, including nearly a quarter of a million HIV tests. When Planned Parenthood was defunded in rural Indiana, there was an explosion of HIV in the county. For many women, Planned Parenthood is the only source of STI testing, birth control, and other women’s health services available to them. Defunding Planned Parenthood would take those services away from the five million people who visit clinic locations each year.

Arguments for Defunding Planned Parenthood

On the flip side, the government funds that are funneled into Planned Parenthood each year have many other worthy recipients. Jeff Duncan, a Representative from South Carolina, said that the Boys and Girls Club, for example, only gets a fraction of the funds that Planned Parenthood gets each year. There is also the argument that there should be fewer government-sponsored programs all together, and Planned Parenthood is just another program that should be funded in another way.

However, no matter how it’s stated, it comes down to this—pro-lifers, and even some pro-choicers, don’t think that the government should fund any organization that has anything to do with abortions, even if it is illegal for federal funds to pay for abortions themselves. In this belief system, Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be a government-funded agency, and therefore defunding the organization would free up tax dollars for other uses.

What’s going on with Planned Parenthood in Texas?

Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, announced in October that the state was going to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds. In return, Planned Parenthood and ten patients are suing the state of Texas in the hopes of stopping officials from cutting off the Medicaid funds that allowed the patients to be treated at Planned Parenthood locations. Texas is the fourth state, following Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana, to be involved in such a lawsuit this year.

Abbott made his announcement after the uproar that the July 2015 videos caused. The videos depicted supposed Planned Parenthood officials discussing selling aborted fetal parts for research, including staff members at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which is located in Houston, Texas.

Does Planned Parenthood stand a chance of winning the lawsuit?

This lawsuit could go either way.

In Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas, the state had to stop proceedings to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds until officials looked into the matter more closely. This means that there is a chance that the removal is unconstitutional, or breaks some kind of law for restricting federal funds. Federal health officials did warn the Texas Health and Human Services Commission in October that removing Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding could be a violation of United States law.

This is also not the first time that Planned Parenthood has sued the state of Texas. In 2012, Texas Republicans removed Planned Parenthood from the Texas Medicaid Women’s Health Program. The state of Texas argued that the federal government gave individual states the right to decide how to allocate federal Medicaid funds, and Planned Parenthood eventually lost the lawsuit.

As of November 23, 2015, the state of Texas had not yet received legal papers in the lawsuit. Once papers are received, the case will likely end up in front of a federal judge.

What about the shooting in Colorado Springs?

On Friday November 27, 2015–Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving best known for shopping deals—there was a fatal shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Three were left dead and nine injured in the shooting, and one of the deceased was a police officer. After a five-hour standoff with police, the shooter was taken into custody.

As of right now, the exact motive for the shooting is unknown. Robert L. Dear was arrested and appeared at a hearing on Monday November 30 wearing a security smocked designed to prevent suicides. Allegedly, when Dear was arrested, he uttered “no more baby parts,” but police have not been forthcoming with any other information.

How does this affect where Planned Parenthood stands?

The spotlight right now is on the potential Presidential candidates. None of the Republican candidates specifically addressed the attack until Saturday, a full day after the events took place, and then, it was on Twitter, and the statements were vague. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders released supports of sympathy. President Obama, meanwhile, stated his continued frustration with gun violence in the U.S.

The Senate voted this week on the bill that will defund Planned Parenthood, and while it was successful, it goes before President Obama now. Additionally, Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, has stated that Republicans are no longer planning to force a government shutdown over the defunding of Planned Parenthood, something they had been threatening to do in early November. However, the status of Planned Parenthood’s funding remains to be seen.

How is all of this related to a prime-time television show?

Shonda Rhimes is not a woman who shies away from controversial issues, as the midseason finale of “Scandal” clearly showed us. It is Rhimes’ relevancy that strikes a nerve with viewers. She was able to show a scenario playing out in the Senate–which is exactly where the bill that may defund Planned Parenthood for a year sat at the time–when a Republican junior Senator from Virginia filibusters so that funding for Planned Parenthood is not downgraded to discretionary. Not only that, but we see Olivia Pope–a strong woman, a character with gumption–in the most vulnerable position a woman can find herself in: on a bed with her feet in stirrups and a doctor between her legs. Put the two women together in a single episode, and you leave your audience with a powerful image.

After the episode aired, Planned Parenthood released this statement:

Tonight, the millions of people who tune into Scandal every Thursday night learned that our rights to reproductive health care are under attack. Never one to shy away from critical issues, Shonda Rhimes used her platform to tell the world that if Planned Parenthood lost funding for contraception counseling, STI testing, cancer screenings, and safe, legal abortion—millions of people would suffer. And this episode wasn’t the first time one of Rhimes’ characters had an abortion, yet tonight we saw one of our favorite characters make the deeply personal decision that one in three women have made in their lifetime. We applaud Shonda Rhimes tonight—and every Thursday night—for proving that when women are telling our stories, the world will pause and watch. We just hope those in Congress—and throughout the nation—who are steadfast on rolling the clock back on reproductive health care access are taking note.

But, further proving the contentious nature of this issue, the conservative Media Research Counsel released their own statement the day after the episode aired:

Hollywood’s liberal values permeate movies and television. Last night’s episode of ABC’s Scandal was pretty much an hour-long advertisement for Planned Parenthood. In the most disturbing scene, the main character has an abortion to ‘Silent Night’ (a hymn celebrating the birth of Jesus) playing in the background. This is Hollywood’s moral depravity on full display.

This particular episode was an interesting juxtaposition when considered side-by-side with what is currently happening in Texas and Colorado Springs. Rhimes showed women making powerful statements about the importance and commonplaceness of women’s health organizations like Planned Parenthood. In the current contentious political climate, “Scandal’s” arc showed a fictional look at some very real issues.

Conclusion

Planned Parenthood will likely always be in the news; such is the case when something as polarizing as abortion is involved. Religious and moral beliefs will cause the country to be split in two on the issue, as has been the case since Planned Parenthood opened its doors one hundred years ago. As long as the issue is relevant, we will continue to see media portray the issue in different lights, both in fiction and in mainstream media. And it is likely that Planned Parenthood and the news surrounding it will stay relevant for a while.

Resources

Primary

Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood at a Glance

Additional

Texas Tribune: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Removal

Los Angeles Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Funding

The New York Times: What Defunding Planned Parenthood Would Really Mean

Denver Post: What We Know about the Planned Parenthood Shooting in Colorado Springs

Refinery 29: Scandal Season 5, Episode 9 Recap: The Women Take a Stand

Entertainment Weekly: Scandal Abortion Shock: ABC Hit Slams Planned Parenthood Defunding

NPR: After Planned Parenthood Shooting, Obama Again Calls for Action on Guns

The New Yorker: The Planned Parenthood Shooting and the Republican Candidates’ Responses

The New York Times: For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack

The New York Times: No Shutdown Expected on Planned Parenthood

The New York Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas in Dispute of Funding for Clinics

Huffington Post: Indiana Shut Down Its Rural Planned Parenthood Clinics and Got an HIV Outbreak

Slate: The GOP Argument for Defunding Planned Parenthood is Incoherent

The Wall Street Journal: Republicans Look for Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood, Repeal Parts of Health Law

The Atlantic: ‘Scandal’ Gracefully Tackled Abortion in Its Midseason Finale

Refinery 29: Planned Parenthood “Applauds Shonda Rhimes” for Last Night’s Episode of Scandal

Daily Signal: Why Haven’t GOP-Led States Defunded Planned Parenthood?

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Planned Parenthood’s Continued Relevancy appeared first on Law Street.

“No more baby parts.” That is what Robert Lewis Dear, the gunman who killed three people and injured several more at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, allegedly told authorities following his arrest. We can assume that the shooter was referring to the smear campaign of videos released earlier this year by the Center for Medical Progress. These videos have been analyzed multiple times and have been proven to be doctored, falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood sells parts from aborted fetuses for profit.

Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts. So why did Dear say “no more baby parts”? That is simple: because the slanderous and hateful rhetoric surrounding those videos continued even after they were proven to be fake, and those fake facts were repeated over and over again by the media and by politicians seeking an emotional reaction from their audience and to bolster their numbers. They are by no means to blame for the tragedy that occurred in Colorado, at least not directly. But politicians do–especially those candidates running for president–need to hold themselves accountable for spreading lies.

It is no secret that politicians stretch and manipulate facts to suit their own agendas, but at some point manipulation turns into outright falsehood. The citizens supporting these candidates, though, don’t know that, and are unlikely to research the facts on their own when they are listening to someone they trust. This is great for people making a living from fact-checking debates, but very bad for the future of American policy.

After the shooting in Colorado, Democratic candidates took to social media immediately to show their support for Planned Parenthood.

We proudly #StandWithPP of Colorado Springs and the brave law enforcement personnel who fought to protect it.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 28, 2015

Today and every day, we #StandWithPP. https://t.co/oifqTQLx1X — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 27, 2015

My thoughts and prayers are with those in Colorado. #StandWithPP

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) November 28, 2015

Meanwhile, Republican candidates stayed relatively quiet. Who can blame them, really, when the place where yet another shooting happened was an organization they so vehemently denounce? A few of the GOP presidential candidates, such as Trump, Fiorina, and Huckabee, finally acknowledged the tragic event, but also turned it into an opportunity to mention, once again, the lie that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue.

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Carly Fiorina was asked whether she thinks the violent rhetoric towards Planned Parenthood is to blame for actions like those in Colorado, to which she replied:

First, it is not alleged. Planned Parenthood acknowledged several weeks ago they would no longer take compensation for body parts, which sounds like an admission they were doing so. Secondly, this is so typical of the left to immediately demonize the messenger, because they don’t agree with the message…What I would say to anyone who tries to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or opposes the sale of body parts is, this is typical left-wing tactics.

Here we see a prime example of fact manipulation, as well as blaming the opposition rather than taking responsibility for spreading lies. It would put Fiorina in an awkward position, of course, to contradict what she said in the CNN debate about the Planned Parenthood videos, which turned out to be incorrect. But is it better to hold tightly to false facts, rather than admit to your supporters that you were wrong? Only in a political career. It is extremely saddening to see that politicians, especially the politicians running for the highest office in the United States, are relying on such underhanded tactics to achieve their goal. It certainly does not bode well for us, the American citizens who have to put up with it.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politicians To Blame For Hateful Planned Parenthood Rhetoric appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. was taken into custody after attacking a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Three people–two civilians and one police officer–were killed and nine others were wounded. News outlets are reporting that Dear told the police who arrested him “no more baby parts,” presumably in reference to the heavily edited videos about Planned Parenthood released this summer by the Center for Medical Progress, but there are still a lot of questions about his exact motives. But despite the fact that there’s still plenty of questions, that shouldn’t stop us from labeling Dear’s actions for what they were: domestic terrorism.

That’s not to say that plenty of writers, journalists, commentators, and politicians haven’t called it domestic terrorism. Many have turned to the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism to make their case, which is compelling. It reads:

‘Domestic terrorism’ means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

But many others have stopped short of that designation, referring to Dear’s crimes as murder, or as Attorney General Loretta Lynch called it a, “crime against women receiving healthcare services at Planned Parenthood.” While “murder” and “crime” are correct, they whitewash the fact that Dear does appear to have had a political motive.

Because even if Dear does have serious mental health problems, he clearly went in with the intent of coercing either the government or Planned Parenthood in some way. I’m having a hard time buying the argument that he was just a crazy guy who randomly chose Planned Parenthood; that he wasn’t convinced by some political, social, or moral reason that his attack was justified. Perpetrators of attacks on this level, such as mass shooters, are rarely totally mentally stable, but that doesn’t keep them from being held accountable for their actions. Dear’s defense team could, of course, argue the insanity defense, but that is a very difficult burden to meet. In short, just because Dear may not have been all there doesn’t preclude him from being charged with domestic terrorism.

The DOJ is still looking into Dear’s actions and it looks likely that the agency will designate it as domestic terrorism. But the state of Colorado will be trying Dear first, and there’s no indication right now that it’s going to charge him with domestic terrorism. That’s a shame, and it’s wrong.

Now, some have called Dear a domestic terrorist, including presidential hopeful Governor Mike Huckabee. He stated:

What he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable, especially to us in the pro-life movement, because there’s nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way on something like this.

That’s a good first step, and recognizes that disagreeing with Planned Parenthood and condemning Dear’s actions for what they were aren’t mutually exclusive. Hopefully more presidential hopefuls will join Huckabee in correctly pinning Dear’s crime as domestic terrorism.

So, why is it so important that Dear’s crime be labeled as domestic terrorism? There’s a lot of reasons, including the double standard that happens in our society when we attribute terrorism almost exclusively to those of Middle Eastern descent, yet often focus on the “mental illnesses” of white perpetrators of terror. Additionally, as Huckabee implies, it’s possible to view Dear’s attack as domestic terrorism, while still disagreeing with Planned Parenthood and abortion. But if nothing else, this needs to be labeled as domestic terrorism, because Dear deserves to be indicted and tried for the crimes he committed, and absolutely nothing less.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Call the Planned Parenthood Attack What it Was: Domestic Terrorism appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy celebrated National Thanks Birth Control Day, where women everywhere were encouraged to share the reasons why they love birth control on social media. The campaign aimed to dispel myths and raise awareness of all of the benefits of contraceptives, which makes perfect sense because birth control is pretty amazing.

Not only does it help prevent unplanned pregnancy, but it also stops cramps, regulates periods, clears acne-prone skin, and allows women to be able to have sex on their terms. All of these reasons account for why 99 percent of women have used birth control at some point in their lives.  Therefore talking about the subject shouldn’t be taboo or politically polarizing, but rather a celebration of women having power over their ovaries and their destinies!

Here are some of the best birth control shout outs women all across the country had on social media:

Birth control gives women power to plan their families & futures. Accessibility is essential. #ThxBirthControl pic.twitter.com/0aAsFCNVar

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) November 10, 2015

#ThxBirthControl for helping me regulate my periods and lessen how long they last each month. Also I enjoy not having babies. — Katelyn (@katelyn0donnell) November 11, 2015

#ThxBirthControl for giving me my life back when endometriosis threatened to cripple it. @bedsider — Tracy L F (@stillsunflowers) November 11, 2015

I get to spend all the energy I would waste on worrying if I was pregnant on writing really fire tweets. #ThxBirthControl — Caitlin Van Horn (@HelloCVH) November 10, 2015

#Birthcontrol means families can plan, women can continue their educations, and kids are born into healthy families. #thxbirthcontrol

— Amanda O. (@colorcodedlife) November 10, 2015

#BirthControl lets us take charge of our own destinies. #ThxBirthControl! pic.twitter.com/xzwDgwBLVT — PP South Atlantic WV (@PPSATWV) November 10, 2015

Its #ThxBirthControl day! So many reasons to be grateful for contraception. And this sums it up. #bossbride pic.twitter.com/Zv1Z30GGj2 — Charreah Jackson (@Charreah) November 10, 2015

#ThxBirthControl for helping us shape our futures! (CC: @Bedsider) pic.twitter.com/iRwTbatHNQ — CenterforReproRights (@ReproRights) November 10, 2015

Fur babies now. Real babies later. #ThxBirthControl for giving us options! pic.twitter.com/AuGX4l74E5

— SF State SHS (@SFStateSHS) November 10, 2015

I want to thank birth control for giving me the opportunity to not worry about unplanned pregnancy. #ThxBirthControl #R29xBedsider — Teen Vogue (@TeenVogue) November 10, 2015

#ThxBirthControl for letting me have 2 kids when I was ready and spaced apart! -Amy pic.twitter.com/cCNX3pQTKR

— CenterforReproRights (@ReproRights) November 10, 2015

More than 99% of women have used birth control. I love being in good company. #ThxBirthControl — Ashley Rickards (@AshleyRickards) November 11, 2015

#ThxBirthControl For helping girls run the world #R29xBedsider pic.twitter.com/TfjNEUaAuV — Teen Vogue (@TeenVogue) November 10, 2015

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #ThxBirthControl Empowers Women’s Right to Control Their Ovaries appeared first on Law Street.

South African comedian Trevor Noah really seems to be coming into his own as the new host of the “Daily Show.” Fresh faced and full of “millennial approved” banter, Noah has confidently revamped the hit satirical news show, while frequently paying homage to his famed predecessor, silver fox Jon Stewart.

However, during last night’s show Noah managed to outdo himself by perfectly tackling two heated issues currently center stage in American politics–abortion and gun control. In the video clip below, Noah criticized “pro-life” GOP primary candidates that fail to fight for gun control, which is also another potentially life-saving measure.

Noah said that “when it comes to restricting access to abortion, they’re killing it.” And he’s right, they are. Despite abortion being legal, anti-abortionists have managed to impose intrusive mandates in some states, such as forced vaginal ultrasounds and mandatory three-day waiting times, that aim to make obtaining an abortion more difficult.

Noah goes on to say,

It’s truly amazing how much the pro-lifers have been able to accomplish in the anti abortion fight. Just imagine what they could do with an issue where the facts are actually on their side?

 

At this point the segment truly came to life. Noah began by presenting scenarios where pro-lifers negatively addressed efforts to promote gun violence, and then asked “imagine if we could bring some of that pro-life passion into being more pro-life.” He then started swapping in pro-life soundbites from the same candidates as appropriate alternative responses to mass shootings.

Noah’s newscast ended on a somber note with this powerful closing message:

The point is, if pro-lifers would just redirect their power towards gun violence, the amount of lives they could save would reach superhero levels. They just need to have superheros’ total dedication to life, because right now they’re more like comic book collectors–human life only holds value until you take it out of the package and then its worth nothing.

However, not everyone was crazy about the clip. Vox argued that Noah’s segment fails by oversimplifying GOP ideals when it comes to gun control. Vox reporter German Lopez writes,

The fault of Noah’s critique of pro-life conservatives who oppose gun control lies in the fact that they don’t believe gun control can save lives. In fact, many gun rights advocates genuinely believe that gun control can get people killed — since without guns, they won’t be able to, for instance, defend themselves from home invaders.

While his point is valid, it doesn’t make Noah’s point any less so. As a comedian on the “Daily Show,” he’s allowed some leeway when it comes to using hyperbolic statements in order to make a point about a current issue at hand. In a little over a week in Stewart’s former chair, he’s making waves by doing just that. As the presidential race continues to heat up, it will be interesting to see what else Trevor Noah has to say.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trevor Noah Points Out Huge Hypocrisy of Pro-Lifers on Gun Control appeared first on Law Street.

In case you haven’t noticed, Planned Parenthood has become the new bogeyman on Capitol Hill–arguments over its funding had, until very recently, the potential to spark a government shut down. This summer, a group called the Center for Medical Progress released heavily edited, now debunked videos that insinuated that Planned Parenthood did a bunch of awful things, including selling fetal tissue for a profit. Despite the fact that these videos were deceptively edited, and investigations of Planned Parenthood have determined that the non-profit didn’t act in any illegal ways, conservatives on the Hill have latched onto a witch hunt aimed at the organization. Yesterday, Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s president since 2006, attended a hearing hosted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. There she was subjected to hours of inappropriate questioning, interruptions, and bullying by some of the House Republicans present. There were so many ridiculous moments to chose from, but here are the top five from yesterday’s hearing.

5. Richards’ Exchange with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)

Shortly after the first video was released, Richards put out an apology:

Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion, this is unacceptable and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.

As Richards explained during the hearing, she was apologizing for the fact that she believed the conversation that was taped by the Center for Medical Progress was in an inappropriate context and setting. But Jordan, like a dog with a bone, fixated on the fact that she apologized for “statements” and demanded to know exactly which statements she was apologizing for. Despite Richards explaining again and again that she was apologizing for the overall situation, Jordan refused to take that answer. Here’s the exchange:

Richards answered his question many, many times. But it wasn’t good enough for Jordan, and that’s really kind of the whole point of the hearing that happened yesterday. It wasn’t about getting answers, it was about berating Richards and showing conservative supporters that the reps were willing to be “tough” on Planned Parenthood. It’s nice that Jordan was able to make that so abundantly clear from the get-go.

4. Questions about Richards’ Salary

At one point Richards was subjected to questioning about her salary by the chair of the committee, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). Now Richards is paid a fair salary for her job as head of an absolutely enormous non-profit, a bit over $500,000. Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood is the 38th largest non-profit in the United States, running it is no easy task, and here in the United States it’s important to pay people competitive salaries for the jobs they do.

Yet Chaffetz saw that as ammunition against Richards, and by extension, Planned Parenthood. Some of the Democratic Reps defended Richards on this front, including this powerful speech from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), but it still stood out as an inappropriate line of questioning.

3. Richards Could Barely Get a Word In

Normally, when people are brought to sit in front a group of Representatives for questioning, they are allowed to answer the questions. Unfortunately that wasn’t true in this case, as Richards was interrupted by pretty much every Republican questioner on the panel, yet another indication that many of them found what they had to say significantly more interesting than what she was saying. Slate’s XXFactor put together a truly fantastic/infuriating rundown of every single time that Richards was interrupted, but the top prize goes to Representative Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) who admitted that he didn’t want to actually hear the answers to his questions when he said told Richards “This is my time. This is my time. So don’t interrupt it.” The audio is below, and it’s pretty clear that Gosar wasn’t there to listen:

2. Everyone Freaked Out About Mammograms

One of the big criticisms about Planned Parenthood brought out at the hearing was that the organization does not provide mammograms, despite being an organization that does provide a relatively inclusive array of health services. Over and over, the reps questioning Richards tried to insinuate that because Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide this one particular service, it renders all of the other things it does useless.

The thing is, mammograms require very specific tools and trained professionals and for providers be accredited by the American College of Radiology. They take place in hospitals or radiology centers, because those are the places that are equipped to provide them. Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be condemned for not providing services that it is not equipped to provide, moreover the organization works with some radiology centers to provide mammograms to low income women when possible. A lack of mammogram services on site does not mean that all of the other services it provides are no longer useful, legitimate, and very much needed. But nice try, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) who attempted so very hard to imply that’s the case.

1. Really Just the Worst Chart

By now, most of you have probably heard of or seen the chart that Chaffetz displayed, that stood contrary to pretty much all logic and math.

Whatever you think of Planned Parenthood, this is a terrible and dishonest chart http://t.co/9p4OwETuoX pic.twitter.com/VtLhy3ayOj

— Vox (@voxdotcom) September 30, 2015

The red line is supposed to portray the number of abortions conducted by Planned Parenthood; the pink line cancer screening and prevention services (these are not the only services that Planned Parenthood provides, but the two that were cherry-picked for the purposes of this chart.) The chart is attempting to show that overall number of abortions performed has gone up from 2006 to 2013, and the number of cancer screening and prevention services has gone down over the same time period. But the chart isn’t anything even remotely to scale, as it makes 327,000 look like it’s a larger number than 935,573. That is obviously incorrect.

Chaffetz then asked Richards to explain the chart. She couldn’t, because she’s presumably a sane human being, and then explained to Chaffetz:

My lawyers have informed me that the source of this is Americans United for Life which is an anti-abortion group so I would check your source.

To which Chaffetz paused and replied: “Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that.”

Yes Chaffetz, please do get the “bottom of the truth” of who made this truly horrendous and non-sensical chart.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Most Ridiculous Moments From the Planned Parenthood Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

News broke this morning that Speaker of the House John Boehner will be resigning from Congress at the end of October. While some are rejoicing that the congressman, perhaps best known for his slightly orange visage and very active tear ducts, is stepping down, it’s also indicative of the identity crisis that is threatening to consume the Republican Party.

Boehner has long clashed with the more conservative, tea party side of his party. Most recently, members of the Freedom Caucus, some of Boehner’s biggest antagonists, threatened to oust him from the leadership if he didn’t make defunding Planned Parenthood a priority in the ongoing budget fight. This isn’t the first time they’ve tried–this has been a long-waged battle. But if they were successful this time around, Boehner was most likely going to have to rely on liberal support to keep his seat, which would be both an unpredictable and embarrassing situation.

But, by stepping down, Boehner also gains some freedom. No longer held hostage by the fact that he may lose a seat he no longer wants, Boehner now has the ability to advocate for a bill that will avoid a government shutdown. A clean spending bill, without the Planned Parenthood provisions, seems likely to pass. A Boehner aide stated about his decision:

The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution. He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership, but for the good of the Republican Conference and the institution, he will resign the Speakership and his seat in Congress, effective October 30.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House before Boehner took the stage for a press conference around 10:45 this morning, pointing out that Boehner’s resignation is indicative of the struggles that the Republican Party is facing right now.

No one is entirely sure who is going to take over Boehner’s seat. Right now, the most likely candidate seems to be Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the highest ranking Republican in Congress after Boehner. But McCarthy falls more in line with Republican establishment than the more conservative members trying to oust Boehner. Whether or not there will be a challenge from the right will be interesting to watch–this battle could get incredibly divisive. Given the infighting currently taking place in the Republican Party over who will be the 2016 nominee, it will be interesting to see if the battle for the House leadership gets just as messy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Boehner Resigns: Another Establishment Republican Bites the Dust appeared first on Law Street.

A recent survey from the Public Library of Science found that 95 percent of women who have had an abortion don’t regret their choice. However, rarely is that choice ever advertised out of fear of public scrutiny and harassment. That may soon change. A new trending hashtag is combating the stigma of abortions by encouraging women to share their stories on social media using the #ShoutYourAbortion.

It all started when Seattle writer Amelia Bonow mustered the courage to share her experience having an abortion  on Facebook. She was inspired after hearing about Republicans in Congress attempting to defund Planned Parenthood, and felt a need to act.

She told Vice that after writing the post she texted her friend, writer Lindy West, about it, and West took a screen-shot of her post and tweeted it to her more than 60,000 followers with their agreed hashtag #shoutyourabortion.

The campaign to defund PP “relies on the assumption that abortion is to be whispered about.” #ShoutYourAbortion pic.twitter.com/r1ilpCVr30

— Lindy West (@thelindywest) September 19, 2015

Women quickly began reacting to the tweet by favoriting it and even sharing their own abortion stories highlighting the impact their decision had on their lives.  Here are some of the stories women bravely shared using the hashtag:

18 & broke + pregnant = bad. Abortion + 3yrs later + married + stable job = a great life for my baby. #ShoutYourAbortion — Sophia (@SophiaSkySays) September 21, 2015

My abortion was in ’10 & the career I’ve built since then fulfills me & makes me better able to care for kids I have now. #ShoutYourAbortion

— Lindy West (@thelindywest) September 20, 2015

My abortion was in 2008. It saved my life and allowed me to escape an abusive, emotionally and physically violent man. #ShoutYourAbortion — hi, is this meagan? (@mgnwrites) September 21, 2015

1000’s of reasons people need abortions which is why we must protect access at all cost. I had one and that is all. #ShoutYourAbortion — Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) September 22, 2015

I’ve never wanted to have children, so I had an abortion. I’m thriving, without guilt, without shame, without apologies. #ShoutYourAbortion — favianna rodriguez (@favianna) September 21, 2015

But I think this woman silenced opponents perfectly in one tweet saying,

No woman wants to have an abortion, however majority of those who have had one were thankful for CHOICE. PERIOD. #ShoutYourAbortion

— Bimm #StandwithPP (@bimmerella) September 22, 2015

The hashtag trended for a few days, in the middle of an intense political debate over Planned Parenthood funding. While the political conversation is still in the works, women who participated in the #ShoutYourAbortion hashtag certainly made their voices heard.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Challenge Abortion Stigma on Social Media Using #ShoutYourAbortion appeared first on Law Street.

Like most elections in recent history, the hot button topics politicians use to illicit an emotional response from voters include education, immigration, and healthcare. Yes, we’ve all heard about Trump wanting to build a wall along the Mexico border. We have developed hope for Bernie Sanders’ plan to decrease student loans.  We have heard one Republican after another decry Planned Parenthood for its supposedly illegal and morally questionable actions.

But the issue is bigger than Planned Parenthood. For many people, Planned Parenthood is a safe, reliable, and cost-effective solution that provides necessary men and women’s healthcare. It performs safe, legal abortions, yes, but more than that provides counseling, exams, pre- and post-natal care to pregnant women, as well as more general healthcare needs.

Again, the issue here is not what Planned Parenthood does or does not do. It’s a deeper problem of government bodies thinking it is okay to prevent women from having control over their own bodies and healthcare. It is not the job of Congress to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. That should be between her and her doctor WHEREVER she chooses to receive healthcare. Why should women who choose Planned Parenthood as their primary source of healthcare be denied these very beneficial services because some people in the government disagree with one of those services?

Protesters of Planned Parenthood think the organization should not receive federal funding because it performs abortions. Yes, it receives money from the government. As do all other non-profit, public health services. Planned Parenthood receives over one-third of its yearly funding from federal sources, but none of that can be legally allocated to abortion services, so that argument falls flat. Any money it receives from the government goes toward the very real need for reliable and affordable healthcare.

Republicans and Pro-Lifers like to cite the recent smear campaign videos that came out about the Planned Parenthood clinics. Carly Fiorina even used those videos as support for her arguments during the last debate.  Unfortunately for Fiorina, the scenes she talked about don’t exist, and the videos have been doctored. Planned Parenthood is not illegally harvesting and selling fetal tissue. But that truth has largely been ignored.

Let me repeat: those videos were discredited. Yet, they keep coming up. Why? Because they cause a reaction, and politicians know that a majority of people will go with emotions first and check facts later.

But we must check facts, because otherwise organizations that help people–like Planned Parenthood–die out, and thousands of women will suffer the consequences.

Next time someone decides to justify taking funding away from Planned Parenthood by citing its abortion services, which aren’t even funded by their federal grants, tell them the facts. Abortion services are only a small percentage of the many healthcare options the clinics offer, and your tax money does not go to them. Think about the women who rely on those clinics to receive life-saving care, and remember that not everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth is true.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Planned Parenthood Debate is Not About Abortion, It’s About Women’s Healthcare appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns to Washington there are several important issues on the docket, from the Iran deal to Pope Francis’ speech, but there is one major debate that is sure to take center stage in the coming days: budget negotiations. It’s certainly not everyone’s favorite reminder of Fall, but it comes each year as sure as the change in seasons. This time around, the budget debate is shaping up to be a particularly ugly battle and may even lead to yet another government shutdown.

Creating a budget traditionally involves the passage of 12 different bills, which fund various parts of the government. But in recent years, Congress has had difficulty passing budget measures and has resorted to using continuing resolutions, which essentially maintain existing funding levels for a short period of time to extend negotiations. The last time Congress passed all 12 bills on time (before the fiscal year begins on October 1) was back in 1996.

When Congress does pass a budget, it typically takes the form of an omnibus bill that combines all of the various spending measures into one piece of legislation. However, such bills often include a lot of minor amendments that allow congressmen to sneak in controversial policies. These changes manage to get through because they are attached to such an important bill, which few people want to derail over one specific issue. A recent example of this was the so-called “Cromnibus” bill, a continuing resolution that was passed at the 11th hour (almost literally) before an impending shutdown last December. The bill included some contentious elements, like raising limits for donations to political parties and rolling back some of the regulations passed after the 2008 financial crisis.

This year, there are several major hurdles that Congress must get past in order to agree on a new budget, which makes a shutdown all the more likely. For those of you who remember the 2013 shutdown–which sought to push back the implementation of Obamacare and lasted for 16 days–a familiar face is back at the center of attention: Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Cruz is leading an emerging group of conservative Republicans who want to stop federal funding for Planned Parenthood–the non-profit healthcare organization that provides a range of reproductive health services including, controversially, abortions. Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually; however, due to a decades-old amendment, that funding cannot be used for abortions.

While Planned Parenthood is perennially a hot topic in American politics, it has become the subject of a lot of attention lately after a series of videos were released alleging that the organization sold organs and tissue from aborted fetuses to researchers. The videos were released by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress. So far, state investigations into Planned Parenthood have found no evidence of wrongdoing and a review of the videos indicate that they were edited before publishing.

There are currently 28 Republicans in the House and Senator Cruz in the Senate who have stated their commitment to either defunding Planned Parenthood or forcing a government shutdown. If the movement garners enough support, the group could refuse to vote on any spending measure that includes any funding for Planned Parenthood. Even if Congress manages to pass a budget that defunds the organization, it will still likely lead to a shutdown because President Obama has already vowed to veto any such bill. Cruz and his allies’ proposed alternative to Planned Parenthood funding calls for the money to be given to community health centers. While several Republicans favor defunding Planned Parenthood, few may be willing to shut down the government over the issue–putting many, particularly the party leaders, in a very difficult position. If the government does shut down it is likely that Congress will take the blame. After the 2013 shutdown, approval of Republicans in Congress reached an all-time low, and now that the party controls both the House and the Senate a shutdown could be even more embarrassing.

Based on the way the budget talks are developing, it’s clear that Planned Parenthood will be one of, if not the most, important issues as the deadline comes closer, but its funding won’t be the only controversial topic in budget talks. Due to the Budget Control Act passed in 2011, also known as the sequester, caps were placed on both domestic and military spending. President Obama has harshly criticized the caps for domestic spending and many Republicans want to provide additional military spending after the Pentagon’s budget faced dramatic cuts as sequestration began. Republicans are now trying to move funding from domestic programs as a way to increase military spending, but President Obama and Congressional Democrats will likely reject any compromise that does not include raising domestic spending. The President has promised to veto any bill that leaves sequestration-level budget caps in place.

Congress only has just over 10 legislative days to pass a new budget or a continuing resolution before the government shuts down at midnight on September 30. Some experts. like Stan Collender, have given precise estimates–Collender believes there is a 67 percent chance of a shutdown. Overall, the likelihood of either solution seems to be in doubt as the deadline looms closer, leaving budget analysts to argue that a shutdown is more likely than not.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brace Yourselves: A Government Shutdown May Be Looming appeared first on Law Street.

Planned Parenthood has long been a divisive organization in national politics, but it received particularly focused and intense ire after a group called the Center for Medical Progress released a series of videos reportedly showing PP’s inappropriate behavior. The videos sparked renewed protests, calls to defund the organization, and plenty of political talking points for the seemingly limitless field of primary candidates. Now, an independent analysis has reported that videos were heavily edited. Unfortunately, that probably won’t slow the controversy.

The argument over Planned Parenthood isn’t over the organization itself, it’s over abortion. Abortion as a political issue has an almost uniquely solidified history. Many social issues in the United States have seen marked changes in support over the years, but the percentages of the population that are pro-choice or pro-life, or somewhere in between, have remained remarkably consistent since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973. According to Gallup, from 1975-2015, somewhere between 48-55 percent of Americans have reported that they believe that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. The percentage of the population that believes it should be illegal under all circumstances is exactly the same today as it was in 1975, at 19 percent, with some fluctuation into the mid teens and low twenties over the years. Those who believe it should be legal under any circumstances has also seen relatively little change, hovering somewhere in the 20-30 percent range for the past 40 years. While obviously individual opinions change over the years, and the simple comparison of numbers from vaguely worded polls should be taken with a grain of salt, it’s safe to say that overall the American population really hasn’t altered its beliefs as a whole much. The rhetoric and arguments used in 1975, and 1995, and 2015 all look fairly similar.

When opinions are so firmly engrained, and when we’re so used to something being a constant debate, it’s really easy to feel confirmation bias. We look for information that validates our world view, and explain away information that does not. That’s where it seems we are with the Planned Parenthood video debate right now. An independent group–Fusion GPS, based in Washington D.C., has said that the videos were altered and are inaccurate representations of the events. Fusion GPS stated about the videos:

A thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict.

Meanwhile, the Center for Medical Progress claim that the discrepancies only came from negligible sources such as bathroom breaks, or waiting periods between meetings, saying:

The absence of bathroom breaks and waiting periods between meetings does not change the hours of dialogue with top-level Planned Parenthood executives eager to manipulate abortion procedures to get high-quality baby parts for financially profitable sale.

So, who’s right? Well quite frankly, it doesn’t really matter. Those who believe in Planned Parenthood’s mission and the importance of a woman’s right to choose aren’t going to change their minds based on the Center for Medical Progress’s explanation. And those who demonize Planned Parenthood and believe that abortion is morally wrong aren’t going to change their minds on abortion just because the videos were seemingly hoaxes.

If anything, this renewed debate only serves one, depressing, singular purpose–to bring up the question during a long, arduous, and increasingly nasty primary election. It was the perfect catalyst for multiple inquiries during the first Republican debate, and continues to be a sticking point for many of the candidates on both sides of the aisle. Most recently, Hillary Clinton’s comments about how pro-life Republicans are wrong for America have fired up the debate even more, when she stated:

Extreme views about women, we expect them from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States, yet they espouse out-of-date and out-of-touch policies.

But Clinton’s statements are just the latest in a long list of quotes, controversies, and events that continue to entrench the conversation. Once again, the abortion debate has become a talking point–over the last 40 years, very little has changed in that respect.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Planned Parenthood Controversy Won’t Change the Abortion Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories included a particularly sassy President Obama, the top law schools for criminal law, and a continued controversy involving Planned Parenthood. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s top stories below:

#1 Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Read full article here.

#2 Top 10 Law Schools for Criminal Law 2015

The legal industry is changing and law schools are no exception. Applications and enrollment are both down, and the value of the traditional legal education with its current price tag is the subject of continual debate. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Law Street Specialty Rankings blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs. This set of rankings deals with the best law schools for criminal law. See the full rankings here.

#3 Planned Parenthood Video: The Controversy Continues

Planned Parenthood is an organization with a mission to promote a healthy sexual lifestyle and family planning. But recent news of a few controversial videos surfacing may be changing some people’s opinions toward the organization. In the more widely viewed video, Center for Medical Progress–an advocacy group that claims to report on medical ethics–had two undercover actors pose as representatives of a human biologics company and went to lunch with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services. Nucatola was secretly recorded and what she said during the video has led to serious arguments about both the video’s validity and Planned Parenthood’s actions. Read full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Planned Parenthood is an organization with a mission to promote a healthy sexual lifestyle and family planning. But recent news of a few controversial videos surfacing may be changing some people’s opinions toward the organization. In the more widely viewed video, Center for Medical Progress–an advocacy group that claims to report on medical ethics–had two undercover actors pose as representatives of a human biologics company and went to lunch with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services. Nucatola was secretly recorded and what she said during the video has led to serious arguments about both the video’s validity and Planned Parenthood’s actions.

The Center for Medical Progress released the video early last week and called it the first in its “Human Capital” series, “a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts.” There were two versions of the video posted on YouTube, an eight-minute version and a “full” version that is close to three hours. The Center for Medical Progress says the video was shot on July 25, 2014 in a California restaurant. David Daleiden, who led the undercover project, said, “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization” in a written statement.

Throughout the video Dr. Nucatola makes shocking statements such as,

We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.

In another part of the video she states, “Every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as ‘This clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'” She did not specifically say the price for the purchase of tissue, but many have questioned if the organization was trying to make a profit.

The Center for Medical Progress also posted an advertisement from a big purchaser of aborted fetal tissue that was posted in Planned Parenthood clinics. The advertisement features words such as “financial profitable,” “financial profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” and “fiscal growth of your own clinic.”

Planned Parenthood issued a response statement denying having done anything wrong and accused the Center for Medical Progress of releasing a video that was heavily edited in order to twist its meaning. It also denied that any money was made from selling aborted baby parts. “There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood,” Spokesman Eric Ferrero said. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”

The video has been met with many horrified reactions–including from the government. The sale or purchase of human body parts, including fetal tissue, is a federal felony that can land someone in prison for ten years. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has called on the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals to conduct an investigation of this incident which he refers to as an “alleged evil and illegal activity.”

There are two sides to every story and Planned Parenthood has stated that Nucatola was not talking about the illegal sale of fetal body parts but instead the legal donation of organs to biomedical research laboratories that use the body parts to save lives. There have also been allegations that the video has ties to James O’Keefe, a well-known video fraudster. According to a statement made by Planned Parenthood today, there are new videos surfacing that the organization once again claims are very heavily edited. However, Planned Parenthood’s reputation is still certainly reeling, and it remains to be seen how it will deal with the continued controversy.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Planned Parenthood Video: The Controversy Continues appeared first on Law Street.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is a victory for women’s rights, reproductive rights proponents, and physicians. It’s also a failure for hypocritical, radically immoral Republican men in North Carolina.

The court decided today to avoid reviewing a law that would force doctors to show and describe a fetal ultrasound to a patient immediately before an abortion, even if she resists. A U.S. District Judge previously struck down the law in 2014 for violating the First Amendment, but state officials filed an appeal to overturn this decision. The law was again branded unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In March of this year, North Carolina officials petitioned the Supreme Court in the hopes that the highest court would uphold their woman-hating law. Luckily, SCOTUS has better cases to review than this one, so the previous decisions to reject the law stand.

What’s so disturbing about the ultrasound law is that it symbolizes the too-widely-accepted belief that women are not able to make informed decisions about their own bodies. Lawmakers in North Carolina argued that this law was a protective measure under the umbrella of “informed consent” and that the law simply ensured that women made a “mature and informed” choice about the matter. But forcing doctors to deliver anti-abortion messages on behalf of the state, even when a woman does not agree to hear the information, isn’t consent.

The law used very detailed language that legally bound physicians to tell their patients about alternative options to abortion, such as “keeping the baby or placing the baby for adoption.” It also forced doctors to place the ultrasound image in front of the woman’s face and describe the “anatomical and physiological characteristics” to the patient before permitting an abortion. The law applied to women who were survivors of rape and incest, and those who discovered severe fetal abnormalities. Even more frustrating is the lawmakers’ incorrect assumption that women are inherently uninformed. Sixty-one percent of abortions are undertaken by women who already have one or more child, so they aren’t naïve about the implications of pregnancy or the responsibilities of parenthood. They don’t need the “help” of male lawmakers telling them that their decisions are invalid.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Last year, they argued in their brief that the law:

Commandeers unwilling physicians to use their own voice and expressive conduct to communicate the state’s message against abortion.

The brief further argued that:

It commandeers physicians to convey this message in a uniquely intrusive way — during a medical procedure while the patient is vulnerable and disrobed on an examination table with an ultrasound probe inside or on her.

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny another review of this law may be a victory today, but there are more anti-abortion laws making headlines that the justices will likely have to address soon. For example, an abortion regulation law in Mississippi threatens to close the last abortion clinic in the state. In a similar vein, a Texas regulation currently making its way through the legal system requires clinics to meet the same building equipment and staffing standards that hospitals must meet, reducing the number of abortion clinics in the state. The Texas law is particularly concerning, as it will cause nearly one million women of reproductive age to live more than 150 miles from an abortion clinic, making abortions even more inaccessible to women of limited income or those who have no disposable time to travel the obscenely long distances to a clinic in order to have the procedure.

Reproductive rights are women’s rights, not North Carolinian, lawmaking men’s rights. I’m glad to see that the Supreme Court, if even just passively, recognizes that.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks SCOTUS: A Victory for Reproductive Rights appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like every month we see the announcements on Facebook. One friend might post how they’re “lighting up the town blue for Autism awareness!” or notify you that they’re “running to support The March of Dimes, please donate here!” You might get calls from various organizations asking you to donate, or get stopped on the street. But no matter where we are, we can’t help but notice that there are a lot of nonprofit organizations out there that want to collect money.

However, there are also those headlines that scare us away from donating money. We see allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and funds never reaching the very people that they are intended to help.

So what is the truth behind non-profits, should you feel safe donating, and most importantly, what rules must non-profits follow?

What is a Non-Profit Organization?

Non-profits (also known as NPOs or non-business entities) seem to confuse a lot of people, especially those who aren’t involved or actively participate in one. Many people will simply say that another word for non-profit is “charity,” which isn’t totally correct. According to the Cornell Legal Information Institute, a non-profit is more complicated:

A non-profit organization is a group organized for purposes other than generating profit and in which no part of the organization’s income is distributed to its members, directors, or officers. Non-profit corporations are often termed ‘non-stock corporations.’ They can take the form of a corporation, an individual enterprise (for example, individual charitable contributions), unincorporated association, partnership, foundation (distinguished by its endowment by a founder, it takes the form of a trusteeship), or condominium (joint ownership of common areas by owners of adjacent individual units incorporated under state condominium acts).

Non-profits cannot just form out of thin air from already existing companies, as they must be designated as a non-profit in their charters. According to the Cornell Institute, “Non-profit organizations include churches, public schools, public charities, public clinics and hospitals, political organizations, legal aid societies, volunteer services organizations, labor unions, professional associations, research institutes, museums, and some governmental agencies.”

A key difference between non-profits and for-profit organizations is that when a for-profit organization goes out of business, the shareholders can get what’s leftover. But when a nonprofit goes out of business, any remaining assets must be given to another nonprofit.

Some of the most popular non-profits include: National Public Radio (NPR), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Human Rights Watch (HRW), WikiLeaks, Green Peace, the Smithsonian Institute, Human Rights Campaign, Kiva, and Doctors Without Borders.

What are the legal requirements to be a non-profit?

Many nonprofit groups want to be considered non-profits because it will help them avoid federal or state taxes. Non-profits often receive tax exemptions from Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which is why nonprofits are sometimes referred to “501(c)(3)s.” State laws are typically stricter than federal laws when it concerns non-profits, and each state has its own set of rules and regulations, though many states do overlap.

State Laws

State laws have big consequences for any non-profits that don’t strictly follow the rules. There are many lawyers who specifically work with non-profits, as the nomenclature can be quite confusing and dense, especially for people who have never taken law classes. A nonprofit that operates in more than one state will need to pay attention to the laws that affect its work in each jurisdiction.

Twenty-six states require that non-profits complete an audit so that they are able to participate in fundraising activities from year to year. According to the National Council of Non-Profits, “thirty-nine states (including the District of Columbia) require charitable nonprofits to register with the state in order to fundraise in that state.” Over half of the states require some form of audit every year, whether the group actively fundraises or not. For example, Maine is particularly strict with licensing and requires renewals each year.

Many of the audits that take place within a state for the government must be done by an independent auditor, or someone who does not have stake in either the company or the government.

To see more about your specific state, visit the National Council of Non-Profits interactive page.

 Political Non-Profits

Political non-profits have become some of the largest contributors to elections in the last few decades. Some of these organizations include the often talked-about Super PACs, which pool campaign contributions from members and donate them to campaigns for or against particular candidates. These organizations, predominantly 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s, “do not have to disclose the sources of their funding–though a minority do disclose some or all of their donors, by choice or in response to specific circumstances.” The anonymity and large scale of these Super PACs have ruffled many feathers, especially within smaller parties.

That may be why the IRS is considering a rule “to police political nonprofits to include political parties and political action committees.” These groups are commonly called “social welfare” groups and operate under those guises, but play by a completely different set of rules.

“If it’s going to be a fair system, it needs to apply across the board,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said when asked by POLITICO about the new rule. He continued, “[I]f we have a set of definitions for 501(c)(4)s, what about everybody else? Can they do more or less [political activity]? And for us as [an] administration, for ease of administration, it makes sense to have this common definition.”

 Non-Profit Spending

How much of what you give a foundation or non-profit actually goes to the cause depends greatly on the specific organization. For most of these organizations, a good chunk goes toward overhead costs like fundraising, employee salaries, and management costs.

For instance, according to The Street, the Walker Cancer Institute “spent 96.4% of its total funds on overhead in 2012. The nonprofit spent 91.1% of its money to raise more funds and 5.3% for management and general costs. CEO Helen Marie Walker received 1.3% of the nonprofit’s funds in 2012.”

To check on any specific charity, the Charity Navigator has spending information on about 7,000 different charities.

Non-profit Controversies

These groups and organizations are not without controversy and problematic behavior. Some of these controversies arose out of tax issues, while others came from the actions of the group specifically.

Case Study: Autism Speaks

The organization has become one of the best known charities in the United States for autism awareness. However, that doesn’t mean the group is without problems.

Autism Speaks has raised autism awareness significantly, and which has led to better treatment, more donations, and more understanding. The Daily Beast details the meteoric rise of autism funding:

When Autism Speaks began, $15 million in private funding went to autism research. In 2010, according to the Interagency Autism Committee (IACC), the federal task force for shaping government autism policy and funding, that amount surged to more than $75 million, with over $18 million from Autism Speaks.

However Autism Speaks has faced some controversies. One of the major criticism levied against the group is that Autism Speaks considers autism to be a “horror” and a “tragedy” that happens to people and families. Autistic Hoya explains: “Autism Speaks regularly issues propaganda in which they say, ‘The rate of autism is higher than the rate of cancer, childhood diabetes, and AIDS combined,’ which compares a developmental disability to diseases.”

In addition, the group has come under fire for allegedly aligning itself with the Judge Rotenberg Center, which uses electric shock therapy. The video below is graphic, but it details some of the treatment:

Case Study: Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Amidst reports of “pinkwashing” or slapping a pink ribbon on a product and calling it support, Susan G. Komen for the Cure recently made a controversial decision that caused it to lose some respect and support. The call came when “it summarily cut off funding to Planned Parenthood in what appeared to be a bow to anti-abortion crusaders.” That cut stopped Planned Parenthood from performing many of the necessary mammograms that caught breast cancer in women, and was reversed in just three days. In the year following, the group lost almost $40 million in donations, and the damage was done.

But that was just the start of the problems for the foundation. When people started looking into its spending, they found something concerning. According to the Los Angeles Times:

While the foundation depicted itself as devoted chiefly to research for a breast cancer cure, it spent only about 20 percent of its donations on research; the biggest expenditure category was public education, at more than 50 percent. Critics questioned whether ‘education’ really should be such a heavy priority in a field where research issues remain important.

While the organization’s reputation is on the mend, it isn’t quite out of the woods yet and still sees some criticism.

Conclusion

Charities and foundations have an extremely important role in our lives–and we should certainly all try to “pay it forward” every now and again. However, before you make that donation, make sure you do some research about the company you are donating to. If you are making a sizeable donation, there are times when you can choose what you want your donation to go towards. Your best bet will always be to donate goods, services, or your time so that you can know firsthand you are helping out.

Resources

Autistic Hoya: Georgetown: Say No to Autism Speaks

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Non-profit Organizations

LA Times: Susan G. Komen Foundation Discovers the Price of Playing Politics

National Council of Non-Profits: State Law Non-profit Audit Requirements

Politico: IRS May Broaden Rule to Police Political Non-Profits

Daily Beast: “Autism Speaks” – but Should Everyone Listen?

Street: You Won’t Believe the Overhead Costs at These 10 Nonprofits

HG: Non-profit Law

Huffington Post: The Truth About Corporate Pinkwashing

Idealist: Do Non-profits Go Out of Business?

Investopedia: Independent Auditor?

Open Secrets: Political Nonprofits

Top Non Profits: What are the Top Non-Profit Organizations?

CNN: Above the Law: America’s Worst Charities

Forbes: Why Autism Speaks Doesn’t Speak for Me

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Non-Profit Organizations: What are the Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, folks! We’ve finally made it through the week. Phew! It’s been a long one, am I right?

Unfortunately, women in Missouri aren’t feeling much relief today. Legislators in the Midwestern state enacted a bill on Wednesday that mandates a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion. There are no exceptions to this rule, even in cases of rape or incest.

So, unless you are about to literally die as a result of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong, if you want an abortion in Missouri, you’ll have to wait it out through a mandatory, three-day “reflection period.” The bill becomes effective in 30 days.

Folks, this bill is extremely problematic for a bunch of reasons.

First, there are the practical ones. Requiring a standard medical procedure to span over a number of days places a real logistical burden on women seeking abortions. Since there’s only one abortion clinic left in the state, accessing abortion services is already super difficult. Many have to travel long distances to reach this single, lonely clinic — a trip that requires a steep financial investment of gas money, wear and tear on your car, and probably a day off from work.

And that’s all before you can even get the actual abortion, which will cost you money, since a number of restrictions on Obamacare and public employee coverage mean it’s pretty unlikely that your insurance will pay for it.

Now, multiply all that hassle by three. Thanks to this bill, not only do Missouri women have to go through all this mess, they also have to take multiple days off from work and book a hotel room.

Oh! And to top off this logistical disaster, that three-day waiting period? You have to go through counseling sessions before it can even begin. They’re specifically designed to misinform women about abortions, and are meant to discourage patients from going through with the procedure — so add another day to that hotel bill, ladies.

The problems with this bill don’t stop there, however. Aside from the practical issues it will cause Missouri women looking to access safe abortion services, it also wreaks a certain level of psychic havoc.

Forcing women to undergo a reflection period to reflect upon a decision they’ve already thought about and made is incredibly condescending, demeaning, and paternalistic. If you’ve traveled 100 miles to get this procedure done — the average distance a patient at St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood will travel to receive an abortion — you’ve already made your decision.

You’ve thought this through.

Abortion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, and guess who knows that better than anyone else? WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ABORTIONS.

Imagine these women were seeking different kinds of medical procedures. A cystectomy, for example, or a colonoscopy. How absurd would it be for someone — aside from her doctor — to step in and tell her to hold on, she’d better think this through?

It would be ridiculous. But the Republican lawmakers of Missouri have decided not to treat abortions like what they are — standard medical procedures — and instead, to separate them out into a special circumstance where women cease to be independent, intelligent adults, capable of making their own decisions. Apparently, when abortions are on the table, the women of Missouri are to be treated like ignorant, irresponsible children.

Now, it’s important to note that this bill didn’t pass easily. When it was introduced earlier this year, Democrats and women’s rights activists protested it, and Governor Jay Nixon even vetoed it. But this week, Republican legislators voted to override the veto, then cut off a Democratic filibuster to force a new vote.

In other words, Missouri Republicans really, REALLY care about forcing women who need abortions to undergo 72 hours of physical, mental, and financial hardship before they’ll be allowed to receive medical care.

Why, exactly, is the GOP so concerned about women’s reproductive systems? The past few years have been filled to the brim with cases of Republican lawmakers restricting women’s access to safe, affordable birth control and abortion services.

New research points to the idea that conservatives believe that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex. A recent study that surveyed Americans on their views about promiscuity found that people who think casual sex is wrong, also believe that women need a man to financially support them.

So, basically, a woman who’s totally independent, both financially and sexually, is a really foreign and potentially threatening concept to many conservative folks. As a result, they’re trying to reign in our ability to have consequence-free sex — which any man can do, by the way, with a quick stop at a local convenience store.

And in Missouri, they’re doing a damn good job.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder appeared first on Law Street.

Birth control has been a source of political controversy since its first days on the market. In recent times, the debate over reproductive health care has traveled to the highest level of judiciary power in the country.

In the June 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court favored a corporation’s religious freedom over a woman’s right to affordable reproductive health coverage. Although the ruling did not completely strike down coverage set forth in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it did set up the possibility for some employers to deny coverage. The IUD, or intrauterine device, is one of the contraceptive methods that no longer has guaranteed coverage. What are the policies surrounding birth control in America, and how truly effective is the IUD?

Pre-Hobby Lobby Policy

Passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) recognizes that contraception is a necessary preventive health service for women. The ACA requires coverage without cost-sharing for women for all FDA-approved contraceptives. This benefits all women who want to use an IUD because of the high upfront costs without insurance.  All FDA-approved birth control methods must be covered by the plans, which includes: IUDs, the pill, the patch, the ring, the shot, diaphragms, sterilization procedures, and cervical caps.

Hobby Lobby Ruling

On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from government regulations that would require them to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties consolidated their cases to challenge the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is limited to closely held corporations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). While some supporters of the majority’s ruling claim the decision won’t affect many women, that is simply not true. More than 90 percent of all American businesses are made up my closely held firms, and they employ approximately 52 percent of the workforce.

The companies argued that just like places of worship and non-profit organizations with religious affiliations, their religious beliefs should exempt them from covering certain emergency contraceptives. This includes IUDs, Plan B, and Ella. Hobby Lobby objected to the morning-after pills and IUDs as they believed they cause abortions. The reasoning is that these forms of contraceptives prevent conception and fertilized egg implantation in the uterus, which to them is equivalent to aborting a life. Director of Contraceptive Development for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Diana L. Blithe, has stated that there is no scientific evidence that these contraceptives work beyond fertilization. Birth control pills will continue to be covered, as they are not in opposition to the employer’s beliefs. The ACA originally allowed for non-profit religious organizations to opt out of providing coverage for contraceptives and have outside insurance companies cover the women, and Justice Alito suggested that for-profit corporations adopt this method as well.

While women were denied basic reproductive health care by this ruling, the male-dominated majority ruled that  would continue to be covered. This hypocrisy has been noted by the public and Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg in her blistering dissent.

What is the IUD?

The IUD is a small, polyethylene “T-shaped” device that is inserted by a health care provider into a woman’s uterus to prevent pregnancy. In the United States there are two types of IUDs available: hormonal (Mirena and Skyla), which released progestin, and copper (ParaGard). Mirena is effective for five years and Skyla is effective for three years; both may give the woman lighter periods. ParaGard is effective for 12 years and does not alter periods. The main way both types of IUDs work is by manipulating the way sperm moves so they are unable to join with an egg.

What are the benefits of an IUD?

The IUD and the birth control implant are the most effective reversible contraceptive methods available. By not requiring user intervention, the risk of pregnancy is less than one percent. If inserted up to five days after unprotected intercourse, copper IUDs can also serve as emergency contraception.

Hormonal methods offer supplementary health benefits in addition to contraceptive use. Similar to a birth control pill, an IUD can treat menstrual pain, menstrual bleeding, and acne.

IUDs help women avoid pregnancy coercion — pressuring one into becoming pregnant — and pregnancy due to a sexual partner’s refusal to use contraception. The device is effective, long lasting, and it’s nearly impossible for a partner to detect one.

Many other forms of birth control are advertised for how effective they are in preventing pregnancy. This is true, if they are used properly. A good example for this is the male condom. It is a common belief that they are 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, however the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 18 percent of women experience an unintended pregnancy while using this method. The discrepancy in information lies within the mighty if. IUDs are so efficient since they remove human error and are long-lasting. From the same CDC report, it was found that copper IUDs have a significantly lower 0.8 percentage.

What are the disadvantages of an IUD?

IUDs, called the Dalkon Shield, debuted in the United States in the 1950s. However, they were later taken off the market because of complications found in early versions of the device. The previous design led to infections and unwanted pregnancies due to it’s complicated method of correct insertion. It was also not widely known by doctors that it had to be removed when a woman became pregnant in order to avoid infection. Pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility was linked to the Dalkon Shield.Alexandra Sifferlin of Time reported, “According to various reports, upwards of 15 women who became pregnant with a Dalkon IUD inside them died of infections after they miscarried.”

Some other disadvantages include:

• IUDs do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (the male condom provides the best protection from most diseases).
• If a woman is uninsured, an IUD costs between $500 and $1500, including tests, exams, insertion, removal, and the IUD itself. The upfront costs may be a barrier for many women.

Are women using them now?

American women have the lowest rate of IUD se of any developed country and more than half have never heard of them. Laura MacIsaac, Director of Family Planning at Mount Sinai, stated, “IUD use in most of Western Europe, it’s about 20 percent, some countries 30 percent…in America, it’s about five percent.” While these numbers are low compared to other countries, since 2008 Planned Parenthood reports a 75 percent increase in IUD use among patients. In 2009, 8.5 percent of women using contraceptives relied on long-acting reversible contraception such as the IUD. This is a dramatic increase from 2.4 percent in 2002 and 5.5 percent in 2007.

Women between the ages of 25 and 29 who are married, women with no religious affiliation, and women covered by Medicaid use IUDs most frequently. Teenagers are less likely to use the IUD; only three percent of 3.2 million teenage women who use contraceptives chose this method.

Conclusion

IUDs have moved past their sullied past and become one of the most effective methods of birth control on the market. With their long-lasting effectiveness, lack of personal upkeep, and low pregnancy rate, IUDs are a favorable contraceptive option.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Current Contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006-2010, and Changes in Patterns of Use Since 1995

SCOTUS: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Additional

Planned Parenthood: IUD as a Form of Birth Control

Guttmacher: Changes in use of Long-Acting Contraceptive Methods in the U.S., 2007-2009

Guttmacher: IUD Fact Sheet

National Women’s Health Network: Not Your Mother’s IUD: Benefits and Risks of Modern IUDs

Time: Why is the Most Effective Form of Birth Control – the IUD – also the one no one is Using?

The New York Times: Religious Groups Equate Some Contraceptives With Abortion

Planned Parenthood: Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon)

Washington Post: A LOT of People Could be Affected by the Supreme Court’s Birth

USA Today: Hobby Lobby Case: What Birth Control is Affected?

Huffington Post: Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies and Viagra

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The IUD: Beyond the Hobby Lobby Case appeared first on Law Street.

This June, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis took the nation by storm. Sporting her now-infamous pink running shoes, she began a filibuster to stop Senate Bill 5. Senate Bill 5 would have severely restricted the rights of abortion providers in Texas. Opponents of the bill argued that the bill’s passage would lead to the vast majority of abortion providers closing down. Davis spoke for about 12 hours against the bill, all while following Texas’s extremely strict filibuster rules. In the end her filibuster was successful, sort of. Senate Bill 5 did not pass that night, but then Governor Rick Perry called a special Senate session in which the legislation passed without a hitch.

The idea of the bill arguably makes some sense. The stated purpose was to help reduce health risks for women undergoing abortion procedures. Any attempt to help women receive safe healthcare is laudable. Unfortunately, that is not what the bill actually did. It mandated that any doctors providing abortions at any point during a woman’s pregnancy be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.  However, there is very little evidence to suggest that this actually mitigates any medical risks from abortions.

To begin, abortions are relatively safe medical procedures. As Dr. Douglas Laube, a board-certified and respected OBGYN in Wisconsin testified during a similar debate in his state, “the risk of death associated with childbirth is 14 times higher than that associated with abortion. The risk of death related to abortion overall is less than 0.7 deaths per 100,000 procedures. Less than 0.3% of women experiencing a complication from an abortion require hospitalization.” Hospitalization after an abortion procedure is exceedingly rare. Further, a doctor’s admitting privileges at a given hospital does not affect the patient’s care once she arrives. If a woman experiences a complication during an abortion, her doctor’s lack of admitting privileges does not preclude the medical care she will receive at the hospital.

The effects were almost immediate—abortion providers across the state began closing or suspending services because of these stringent new rules. Women who already had appointments scheduled are being turned away, leaving many with no further options. These abortion providers, led by Planned Parenthood, are fighting back.

The law was struck down as unconstitutional  earlier this fall, but last week the Fifth Federal Court of Appeals reinstated most of the provisions of the abortion law. Now the fight will move to the highest court in the land. These women’s rights groups and abortion providers have filed a request for an emergency injunction to hold up the lower court’s ruling until the issue can be firmly resolved.

Abortion is an issue that has been in the periphery of the Supreme Court for years. Precedents such as Roe and Doe have dictated the constitutionality of abortion regulations for years. However it seems to be common knowledge that a law challenging abortion, or on the flip side, abortion regulations will end up in front of the Supreme Court at some point. How the Court decides this Texas abortion regulations case may be able to provide some foreshadowing of how this conservative court will decide in the future.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [ann harkness via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Abortion Battle to Reach Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.