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.

Texas lawmakers have been busy the last few weeks. Controversy surrounding a transgender bathroom bill in the mold of North Carolina’s HB2 law thrust the Texas Senate into the news after its Committee on State Affairs approved the measure with a 7-1 vote. Yet, while all of that was happening, another controversial bill flew slightly under the radar.

Senate Bill 25, which was unanimously passed by the committee and will soon move on to the full senate for a vote, would protect doctors from “wrongful birth” lawsuits. This would effectively prevent parents of a disabled child from using wrongful birth as a cause of action against a doctor who withheld information about a fetus’ condition that would have led parents to choose to have an abortion.

The bill’s supporters argue that wrongful birth as a cause of action in a lawsuit is inherently wrong, as it suggests that a birth could be “wrongful.”

“Senate Bill 25 will send a message that Texas does not believe that a life, in and of itself, is an injury in which parents need a damage payment,” said Texas Senator Brandon Creighton during a livestream of the committee hearing.

Critics of the bill argue that a damage payment is necessary in the event that doctors knowingly lied to parents about the health of a fetus because it limits the freedom of choice that a woman has over her pregnancy and her right to have an abortion.

“Eliminating a wrongful birth claim deprives such parents of the right to sue for monetary damages to cover the lifetime costs of caring for their child,” testified Margaret Johnson on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Texas. “These cases are rare but are appropriate redress for parents in such situations.”

Johnson added,

SB 25 is a not so subtle way of giving medical personnel the opportunity to impose their religious beliefs on pregnant women by withholding information about the condition of the fetus–and depriving women of making an informed decision about continuing the pregnancy.

However, Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, contended that the bill “in no way restricts access to testing, in no way restricts access to abortion, and in no way regulates abortion.”

Allmon testified:

It simply says that a lawsuit based on the premise that a child should not have been born is wrong. We believe that a lawsuit that begins as its premise that we should have had the opportunity to kill our disabled child sends a terrible message to those disabled children in Texas.

Supporters of the bill appear to be arguing semantics by pointing out that the bill only targets wrongful birth as a specific course of action because it is morally wrong to suggest that a child should never have been born. They also attest that it wouldn’t hinder a person’s right to bring about another type of medical malpractice lawsuit.

But this logic is dizzying, if not disingenuous. If this law were to take away the option to use wrongful birth and its elements as a claim, constitutional claims could arise that question its validity. Blake Rocap, a legislative counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, pointed out this illogic in his testimony.

Rocap said:

That’s not how it works. If someone were to maintain a suit for medical malpractice and seek the damages for the care of their special child..they would not be able to recover for that care. The court would say ‘What you’re really doing here is trying to maintain a wrongful birth lawsuit, that’s the cause of action you’re really pleading.

If this bill passes in the full senate, it would be added to a list of controversial anti-abortion laws passed in Texas. According to CNN, wrongful birth lawsuits are actually pretty rare, and the bill’s author acknowledges this fact. Additionally, as NPR reported, these lawsuits are incredibly difficult to win.

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 The Debate Over “Wrongful Birth” in Texas 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.

Texas established new rules preventing health care facilities from disposing of fetal remains following an abortion or any miscarriage that requires a medical procedure–instead, the state will now require women to pay for the burial or cremation of those remains.

The rules will take effect on December 19, according to state health officials, the Texas Tribune reported. The decision, supported by Governor Greg Abbott, prohibits hospitals, abortion clinics, and other health care facilities from disposing of fetal remains regardless of the period of gestation.

In a fundraising email sent to supporters Thursday, Abbott cited the rule change, saying Texas is working to “turn the tides” against the abortion industry in the state and protect the “rights of the unborn.”

“I believe it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life,” Abbott said in the email. “This is why Texas will require clinics and hospitals to bury or cremate human and fetal remains.”

The Texas Department of State Health Services finalized the new regulation on Monday, inviting a legal challenge from reproductive rights advocates. Their arguments against the rule are that it has no medical or safety benefits. In fact, reproductive rights advocates said the state had failed to provide evidence that the rule benefits public health or improves current medical practices.

But Republican lawmakers have already filed legislation to make the law official when the state government reconvenes in January.

“The state agency has once again ignored the concerns of the medical community and thousands of Texans by playing politics with people’s private healthcare decisions,” Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said in a statement.

The public reaction to the fetal burial law was overwhelmingly negative online.

Keep in mind that fetal burial laws aren’t just in Texas; Ohio has one coming down the pike & VP-elect Pence signed one into law in Indiana.

— Lauren Rankin (@laurenarankin) November 29, 2016

This will encourage women having a miscarriage not to see a doctor. That’s unconscionable. https://t.co/H8rgViM7Zc

— Lori Grapentine (@LGraps) November 29, 2016

Texas is the second state to implement a fetal burial law. When Vice President-elect Mike Pence was the governor of Indiana, he also signed a bill that included such a provision.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Rules in Texas Will Require Burial or Cremation of Fetal Remains appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Polish nationals fought for their reproductive rights after the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) tried to pass a bill designed to criminalize abortions. The proposed statute, which was originally brought forth by an anti-abortion citizens’ initiative and encouraged by the Catholic church, aimed to completely outlaw abortions unless the mother’s life was threatened. Prison sentences for illegal procedures would have also increased from two to five years, in addition to penalizing surgeons who perform unlawful operations.

In the wake of such a proposition, a series of protests dubbed “Black Monday” disrupted the ordinance from gaining further momentum in the predominately Catholic country. Three days after these events unfolded, the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish parliament) overturned the bill in a 352-58 vote–proving the power of an active citizenry. Considering how successful these protests were in persuading the government to discard the bill, Poland nonetheless has an array of political and cultural challenges to overcome before women achieve total self-autonomy. The following article delves into some of these obstacles.

The Magnitude of “Black Monday”

On a conceptual level, these historic actions were inspired by an Icelandic strike in 1975, where 90 percent of the country’s female population abandoned their jobs and domestic duties to denounce rampant workplace discrimination. Propelled by this example, protests were held throughout Poland and other surrounding countries on Monday October 3, 2016. Solidarity events took place in Berlin, Dusseldorf, London, and Paris, although the largest of these assemblies occurred in the Polish capital of Warsaw where approximately 30,000 individuals (clad in black clothing) gathered to rebuke the religious-based injunction. Such an outpouring of support surprised many, considering people only had a day’s notice to prepare for the event. Some even boycotted school and work to show their commitment to the cause.

“The protest was bigger than anyone expected. People were astonished,” said one activist, Agnieszka Graff. “Warsaw was swarming with women in black. It was amazing to feel the energy and the anger, the emotional intensity was incredible.”

During an interview with NPR, Reuters staff member and Polish citizen, Justyna Pawlak, also explained how the protests caught on like wild fire, despite the lack of initial planning:

There wasn’t a real kind of serious organization committee. And what’s interesting is, you know, Poland, as you said, is a very conservative country still, even though the power of the church and the – kind of the sway of the church over the heart and soul of churchgoers has been waning, bishops still have a lot of – a lot of influence over how people vote and how they think. There’s still quite a lot of opposition for abortion on demand in Poland, but many women felt that these new proposed restrictions just simply went too far.

An Unforeseen Political Response

Following these nationwide protests, the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the Polish parliament urged the PiS to reconsider the ordinance. PiS Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski surprised many by taking this suggestion to heart after witnessing the intensity of the Black Monday demonstrations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the right-wing politician realized that a total ban could potentially have adverse effects later down the road. From his perspective, a complete ban would only embolden future efforts among liberal politicians to ensure unabated access to abortions someday. In the end, Kacynski’s remarks resonated among other senior politicians and even the Catholic clergy, who couldn’t endorse prison sentences for women seeking abortions.

“What you’re proposing isn’t the right course of action,” said Kaczynski. “Considering the situation in the society, what you’re proposing will be a factor that will start processes whose effect will be exactly opposite to what you’re talking about.”

Poland’s Strong Catholic Roots

Compared to other countries in the European Union, Poland’s pre-existing reproductive laws were already among the most restrictive because of the nation’s Catholic roots. Last year approximately 1,000 women received legal abortions, which could only be fulfilled if the fetus was severely damaged, if the mother’s life was jeopardized, or if the pregnancy was caused by incest or rape. Although the recently initiated bill was not ratified, these stipulations still exist today. Faced with such barriers at home and fear of stigmatization, an estimated 150,000 illegal abortions are performed every year in facilities with questionable sanitary conditions. Keeping this in mind, thousands of Polish women also travel abroad to receive abortions, especially in nearby countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia–termed “abortion tourism.”

These aforementioned policies began in 1993 as a means to replace Poland’s communist-era policies where abortions were once easily obtainable. With 95 percent of the country identifying as Catholic, it is widely acknowledged that the church yields profound “moral authority” over the population and influences people’s political decisions. Some doctors are reluctant to even facilitate abortions, even if the mother’s survival is in peril or if a pregnancy is a result of rape. There have been noted cases where doctors deliberately delayed approving abortions until the twelfth week when it’s too late to remove the fetus. Back in 2012, for example, officials tried to persuade a 14-year-old from opting out of an abortion after being raped. Another problematic incident transpired when a vision-impaired mother, Alicja Tysiąc, was forced to follow through with her pregnancy regardless of the dangers it presented to her eyesight. This brings up the question of human rights and whether or not Poland’s reproductive policies are disregarding Polish women’s wellbeing.

Interest groups such as the Stop Abortion coalition and think-tank Ordo Iuris are still actively trying to enact prohibitive laws against abortions. After all, they are the lobbyists responsible for presenting the Polish parliament with more than 400,000 signatures to start the bill in the first place. At first these groups’ endeavors were backed by the Catholic church. In the long run, though, the clergy could not promote a law allowing for the imprisonment of women and health practitioners. 

Conclusion

Public opinion over abortion appeared to drastically change once the protests materialized. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Poles now disapprove of the ban, not to mention desire the existing set of reproductive laws to become more liberalized. The Economist says that today only 14 percent of Poles condone the original ban (in hindsight), making it highly unpopular among today’s general populace.

The participants of Black Monday may have set a new precedent for other countries with restrictive abortion laws, but pro-choice activists still have a lot of work cut out for them. Certain political parties are currently drafting their own anti-abortion bills and trying to push them into legislation. For example, it is reported that PiS is pushing for a “eugenic abortions” bill that would criminalize abortions for fetuses with abnormalities–meaning that the three existing stipulations for abortions would be dwindled down to only two. So far in PiS’s tenure in Polish parliament, the group has also cut state funding for in-vitro fertilization as well as drafted legislation to ban and criminalize the morning-after pill.

To prevent further “medieval regulations” from being placed on the agenda, Poland’s opposition party, Nowoczesna (meaning “modern” in Polish), have pledged to provide women with more reproductive freedom. The liberal party partnered with the Save the Women group to plan the Black Monday protests. According to them, illegal abortions could cease to exist if the Polish government decided to introduce sex education into the classroom, allocate state-funded contraception, as well as provide wider access to qualified doctors.

Resources

BBC News: Poland Abortion: Parliament Rejects Near-Total Ban

CBC News: Poland’s Proposed Ban on Abortion Part of Broader Push to Turn Back History

Center for Reproductive Rights: Tysiąc v. Poland: Ensuring Effective Access to Legal Abortion

The Conversation: The Battle Over Abortion Rights in Poland is Not Over

Economist: Polish Women Skip Work to Protest Against an Abortion Ban

The Guardian: Poland’s Abortion Plan Near Collapse After Mass Protests

New York Times: Poland Steps Back from Stricter Anti-Abortion Law

NPR: Poland Backs Down on Abortion Plan After Extraordinary Protests

Reuters: Abortion Protests Rattle Polish Ruling Party, May Prompt Rethink

Reuters: Europe Rights Court Condemns Poland in Abortion Rape Case

Reuters: More Polish Women Seen Seeking Abortions Abroad

Vox: Poland Votes Down an Extreme Abortion Ban After Thousands of Women Go on Strike

Wall Street Journal: Poland Rejects Abortion Ban After Protests

Washington Post: Why Would Poland Make its Already Strict Abortion Law Draconian?

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Poland’s Abortion Protests: What was “Black Monday?” 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.

Monday morning at 9 AM people were lined up outside of the Supreme Court to finally find out what the decision would be in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. In a surprising turn of events, the decision swung in favor of Texas abortion clinics, striking down strict state regulations that had forced around half of the state’s abortion clinics to close in the past few years. When the 5-3 decision was announced, the crowd went wild. Queen’s “We Are the Champions” played; bystanders chanted; families who were just trying to see the Supreme Court on vacation looked confused but excited to be a part of history. This decision has the potential to be monumental in the world of reproductive rights, which may be why it drew such a large crowd of people from all different backgrounds. The morning was historic and, to capture the feeling of what it was like to be there, here are the top eight signs seen outside the Court as the interns were running to retrieve the decision.

#8 Uterus Inc.

Phoebe’s sign is all about pointing out the irony in some conservatives’ opinions. So the government should have no ability to regulate a large corporation, but can tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body? Perfectly alright.  

Image Courtesy of Alex Simone for Law Street Media

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Top 8 Signs from the Whole Woman’s Health Decision Release appeared first on Law Street.

With the swish of her pen, Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) made South Carolina the 13th state to outlaw abortions once a fetus reaches 20 weeks. There are no exceptions in the case of rape or incest, but the bill does allow for post-20 week abortions if the mother’s life is in danger or if the fetus is “incompatible with sustaining life after birth.”

“It is the purpose of the State to assert a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain,” reads the text of the bill, which was named the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Reactions from the state’s General Assembly, which passed the bill on May 17, ranged from staunchly supportive to disappointed.

“I believe that an unborn child is human life and therefore I am compelled to be opposed to abortion except if the life of the mother is threatened,” said Senator Chip Campsen (R-Isle of Palms).

“Women’s reproductive rights should not be subject to politics,” said Senator Marlon Kimpson (D-Charleston).

As for the “substantial medical evidence” that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks, as cited in the bill’s language, studies over the last decade have supported both sides of the argument, and the topic is still highly controversial. For example, a 2005 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that a fetus does not experience pain until after the third trimester, or at 28 weeks into the pregnancy. The study was not without controversy, however, as two of its authors were found to have ties to pro-abortion groups. One was a lawyer for an abortion rights group, NARAL, for eight months in 1999, and another was a doctor who performs abortions and was the medical director of an abortion clinic.

In her testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in 2012–involving a bill that would ban abortions at 20 weeks within the jurisdiction of Washington D.C.–Colleen A. Malloy, an assistant neonatal professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, presented her finding that fetuses do indeed feel pain prior to 20 weeks, stating:

As early as 8 weeks post-fertilization, face skin receptors appear. At 14 weeks, sensory fibers grow into the spinal cord and connect with the thalamus. At 13-16 weeks, monoamine fibers reach the cerebral cortex, so that by 17-20 weeks the thalamo-cortical relays penetrate the cortex.

But a representative of Charleston Women’s Health Medical Center, one of three abortion clinics in South Carolina, told Law Street that the bill would not have any effect on its practice, as the clinic only provides abortions up to the 13th week of pregnancy.

Last week, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, South Carolina Section sent a letter to Haley, urging her to veto the bill, which they saw as a “large step backward for our state”, stating: “Only a woman and her trusted doctors—not elected officials—should make decisions about her health.”

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 South Carolina Governor Signs Bill Banning Abortions Past 20 Weeks 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.

Doctors who perform abortions may be about to have their licenses revoked in Oklahoma if Republican Governor Mary Fallin signs off on SB 1552.

The bill passed through both houses of the legislature last week in a vote of 59-9 with 33 abstentions, and is now awaiting the governor’s approval. Fallin has not indicated, however, if she will sign it or not.

Doctors who perform abortions would be barred from obtaining or renewing their medical licenses. However, this bill does make exceptions in the cases of saving the mother’s life–but leaves out cases of rape and incest.

“Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women’s access vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low,” Amanda Allen, Senior State Legislative Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which advocates for abortion rights, said in a statement on the organization’s website.

Democratic Representative Emily Virgin, who opposed the bill, was concerned with the effect this bill would have on the number of physicians in the state. “We already have a severe physician shortage in Oklahoma, so are you at all concerned about physicians leaving Oklahoma if this bill becomes law?” she asked the bill’s co-sponsor, Republican Representative David Brumbaugh. He responded, saying, “There’s no way that this will impact the medical community, and we’ve checked through that.”

He was later challenged on the idea that the passage of this bill could lead to legal issues. In fact, the bill itself actually has a clause at the end discussing what would happen in the event that the Constitutionality of this law is challenged:

In the event that any provision of this act is challenged in court in any action alleging a violation of either the Constitution of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma, the Office of the Attorney General shall determine the amount of state or local funds expended to defend such action. Such determination shall include the number of hours of time spent by any public employee in such defense multiplied by the rate of compensation paid to such employee, as well as the costs of any outside counsel paid for such purpose, and shall include both direct and indirect costs. The Office of the Attorney General shall report such amounts for each calendar quarter to all members of the Legislature.

“Do we make laws because they’re moral and right, or do we make them based on what an unelected judicial occupant might question or want to overturn,” Brumbaugh asked. “The last time I looked, that’s why I thought we had a separation of power.”

The bill also makes it a felony to perform an abortion:

No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman unless that person is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year nor more than three (3) years in the State Penitentiary.

Planned Parenthood responded on Twitter:

Not content with intruding in your personal decisions, OK gynoticians now want to revoke med licenses of doctors. https://t.co/8oRoRsBQfg

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) April 23, 2016

Brumbaugh also added during the debate, “If we take care of the morality, God will take care of the economy.” We’ll have to see if the rest of Oklahoma, particularly Governor Fallin, is swayed by that argument.

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 Bill To Revoke Licenses of Doctors Performing Abortions Passes Oklahoma Legislature appeared first on Law Street.

In case you missed it, a lot happened last week. Super Tuesday voting dominated most political conversations, but it was Chris Christie’s hostage-like facial expressions during Trump’s speech that became the talk of the night. All eyes were also on the Supreme Court, as pro-choice supporters rallied to #StoptheSham in lieu of Texas’ new controversial abortion laws. For more on Law Street’s best of the week keep reading below.

1. Is Chris Christie Okay?

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump addressed a crowd in Florida after garnering some lofty Super Tuesday wins. Former presidential hopeful and current governor of New Jersey Chris Christie introduced Trump, but it wasn’t the introduction that made observers concerned for Christie’s safety. Read the full story here.

2. #StoptheSham: Scenes from the Pro-Choice Rally at SCOTUS

Today, hundreds of pro-choice supporters rallied in front of the Supreme Court. Oral arguments will be heard today in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that will cause the justices to weigh in on the constitutionality of Texas’s new controversial abortion laws. Given the high stakes nature of the case–it could set national precedent for abortion laws either way it goes–protestors set out for the Supreme Court this morning, and I headed over to check it out and grab some photos of the attendees. Read the full story here.

3. After Last Weekend, All Eyes are on Super Tuesday

Democrats in Nevada and Republicans in South Carolina took to the polls on Saturday to choose their parties’ nominee for President. When the dust settled, Donald Trump walked away with a commanding lead in the South Carolina primary while Hillary Clinton pulled out ahead in the Nevada primary. The recent contests help solidify the conventional wisdom about the election so far, but much of the analysis is still speculation. While many questions remain, we may soon have answers–Super Tuesday is approaching. 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.

Today, hundreds of pro-choice supporters rallied in front of the Supreme Court. Oral arguments will be heard today in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that will cause the justices to weigh in on the constitutionality of Texas’s new controversial abortion laws. Given the high stakes nature of the case–it could set national precedent for abortion laws either way it goes–protestors set out for the Supreme Court this morning, and I headed over to check it out and grab some photos of the attendees.

The new Texas regulations place additional restrictions on abortion providers, many of which are viewed as unnecessarily burdensome. Proponents of the Texas law argue that they’re trying to protect women’s health; opponents argue that the laws are just backdoor attempts to prevent abortion access in the state. The Texas provisions fall under the category of “TRAP laws,” a.k.a. targeted regulations of abortion providers. Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune describes the general purposes of the laws, stating that: “in most cases they compel abortion clinics to meet the architectural, equipment and staffing standards of outpatient surgical centers, and to be staffed by doctors who have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.” While those sound in theory like good ideas, they are excessive, medically unnecessary, and ultimately just make it harder for abortion providers to operate.

Despite the incredibly windy and blustery morning, the scene at SCOTUS today was crowded and enthusiastic. The event, which was organized by a number of pro-choice groups, featured men, women, and a few adorable dogs, as well as prominent pro-choice speakers. A common refrain from the crowd was “Stop the Sham,” a rallying cry that has also reverberated around social media in the form of a hashtag: #StoptheSham.

Rights don’t matter if you can’t access them. #WeWontGoBack #StopTheSham pic.twitter.com/mrDI8PWi2Q

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) March 2, 2016

I’m with you all in spirit!! #SCOTUS #stopthesham #WeWontGoBack https://t.co/EjVddYnGBZ — Wendy Davis (@wendydavis) March 2, 2016

Today the Court hears argument in #WholeWomansHealth, the most important repro rights case in 20 years #StopTheShampic.twitter.com/4qhUyGqxjC

— Notorious R.B.G. (@NotoriousRBG) March 2, 2016

And on a lighter, final note, no rally in front of the Supreme Court would be complete without some fantastic protest signs. Check out some of my favorites in the slideshow below:

Image courtesy of [Anneliese Mahoney via Law Street Media]

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 #StoptheSham: Scenes from the Pro-Choice Rally at SCOTUS appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to 2016! We are living in a world where Donald Trump is running for president (and doing surprisingly well), mermaid tails are readily available on the internet, oh, and Girl Scout cookies are being actively boycotted by pro-life groups. Because, really, there’s nothing more evil in this world than a delicious box of Thin Mints or your adorable next-door neighbor, Susie the Girl Scout, trying to sell you cookies.

The movement against these cookies, dubbed a “cookiecott” when it began last year, was started because pro-life groups are upset by supposed recent ties between the Girl Scouts of the USA and pro-choice advocates. As the cookie season has kicked into full swing this year, so have the protesters. On their website, the cookiecotters specifically point out that the World Association of  Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) “aggressively promotes youth reproductive/abortion and sexual rights.” I don’t know about you all, but I fondly remember my own days as a Girl Scout, where my troop leaders reminded me daily about my right to an abortion as an eight-year-old troop member.

The group also cites several organizations that the Girl Scouts have relationships with as serious concerns; the Coalition for Adolescent Girls is one of those “troubling” partnerships. I’m having a really hard time seeing the problem with (to quote the mission statement on the front page of the organization’s website) “a member-led and driven organization dedicated to supporting, investing in, and improving the lives of adolescent girls.” You’ve got me, cookiecott supporters. How DARE the Girl Scouts of America promote the improvement of the lives of young women!

Leaders of the anti-cookie movement also claim that the Girl Scouts have a historical relationship with Planned Parenthood, but there is little to no evidence that this relationship actually exists. In fact, on the website for the Girl Scouts of the USA there is a direct statement in the FAQ’s that the organization does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood. Honestly, even if there was any evidence that the Girl Scouts of the USA did partner with Planed Parenthood–which, other than rumors and right-wing gossip, there’s not–are we really back on the anti-women’s health organization bandwagon? I had really hoped we ended this debate months ago when we talked about all the services Planned Parenthood provides for young women on a daily basis. If anything, the Girl Scouts should be commended if they promote organizations that support women’s rights and provide affordable health services to women all over the country who need them.

In case you still haven’t been convinced by their argument yet, I’ve got a treat for you. Please sit through this excruciating six minute and 14 second video of a mind-numbingly boring midwestern mom explaining exactly why you can’t trust the Girl Scouts or their cookies. Trust me, it’s worth it.

To a certain extent, their arguments almost make sense. The Girl Scouts are tangentially connected to some groups who also happen to be connected to the pro-choice movement, just like the tweet below suggests.

#cookiecott pic.twitter.com/3jczmQBIwZ

— Devon Hensley (@DevonB324) February 13, 2016

Yes, the group has held events with speakers like Hillary Clinton and Betty Friedan, who are known for their feminist ideas and support of pro-choice policies. Yes, it may have ties to organizations with pro-choice beliefs. But, what I fundamentally do not understand about this whole argument is the fact that the organization has in no way taken a pro-choice stand on abortion, or any stand, for that matter. I don’t know where these cookie haters are getting their information, or how they have the self control to say no to Girl Scout cookies, but I think the whole thing is a little ridiculous. Girl Scout cookies are pretty much the most positive thing I can think of–they even made an appearance at the Oscars last night! So, let’s stop this cookiecott nonsense and get back to supporting an organization that motivates and supports girls and young women nationwide.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Down With Girl Scout Cookies: Did you Join the Cookiecott? 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.

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.

Women have, for centuries, been fighting a battle to obtain equal rights and autonomy within the patriarchal society in which we live. From voting rights, equal pay, gender equality, and financial independence to stigmatized domestic violence ideologies and highly controversial contraceptive and reproductive rights, women continue to strive toward a gender equilibrium.

While their history is bountiful, reproductive rights–specifically those focused on abortion–have morphed from a religious, hot-button voting issue and politically polarizing topic of interest into a women’s rights and equality war zone, which has mixed reviews even from within. For years, various states have been testing the limitations of abortion laws by trying to implement restrictions to access, mandatory and burdensome requirements, and regulations upon women and healthcare providers. Most have not passed muster, however, in early November 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a major and consequential abortion rights case for the first time since 2007. Read on to learn more about the history of abortion rights, the important facts of Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, and what it could mean for future generations of women.

A “Brief” History of Abortion Rights

Laws pertaining to contraception came to the Supreme Court in 1965 with Griswold v. Connecticut, where the court found that a state statute forbidding the use of contraceptives, punishable by fine and imprisonment, was unconstitutional. Justice William O. Douglas crafted the “penumbra” argument, stating that, “…the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion,” finding that “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” is not a place that is subject to government control and infringement. Marital privacy was to remain private. The curtain would remained closed on the intimacies of married life.

Image Courtesy Of [Kate Ausburn via Flickr]

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade. Justice Harry Blackmun, a conservative father to three daughters who served as resident counsel in the Mayo Clinic (1950-1959), authored the weighty opinion. The importance of the right to privacy and a woman’s autonomy over her pregnancy led him and the Court to find the restrictive Texas statute unconstitutional and abortion a private legal matter encompassing a woman’s right to choose. The Court quoted the Texas District Court below, agreeing that the “fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.” However, the opinion explained vested interests in abortion proceedings and outlined different levels of state interests in regulating abortion procedures in the second and third trimester.

While 1992 brought United States citizens “Aladdin,” Windows 3.1, and the birth of Miley Cyrus, it also bestowed upon us the sequel to Roe v. Wade in the form of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey—a complex multi-part decision that ultimately addressed what regulations were and were not acceptable by the states regarding abortion procedures under a undue burden/substantial obstacle analysis. The Court reaffirmed its Roe holding by adhering to the three major principles in Roe: 

1. That a woman has the right to abort prior to viability “without undue interference from the State:”
2. That the State has the right to restrict abortions after fetal viability so long as its laws contain exceptions for any pregnancy that endangers the life or health of a woman; and
3. That the State has a “legitimate interest” in the pregnancy to protect the life of the woman and fetus.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey challenged five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982. One required women, prior to getting an abortion, to obtain informed consent. Informed consent is a process in which a woman is provided with the risks of abortion, fetal development, gestational age of the fetus, whether the fetus can feel pain during the procedure, and that personhood begins at conception, etc. The act also require women to wait a mandatory 24 hours following signed consent to proceed with the procedure, obtain parental consent for minors with the allowance of a judicial bypass, and obtain signed spousal consent. Additionally, the act defined a “medical emergency” within the context of abortion procedures and set out specific reporting requirements by the facilities performing abortion services. The Court, in a plurality decision, upheld the central holding in Roe, but did however, overturn Roe’s trimester analysis framework and only found one provision–requiring spousal consent–burdensome and an unconstitutional regulation on a woman’s right to choose. The rest of the provisions were upheld.

Legal discourse pertaining to abortion did not end there.  In 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart surfaced to challenge a Nebraska statute prohibiting and criminalizing “partial birth abortions,” also known as “dilation and extraction” in the medical community. The court’s scientifically detailed opinion ultimately held that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional and therefore could not be enforced as it did not carve out an exception for the “preservation of the health of the mother.” Additionally, the statute, with its ambiguous wording and terminology, unduly burdened the mother’s ability to choose an abortion, noting that in certain situations and in the presence of specific circumstances, partial birth abortions were “safer” than alternative procedures and methods.

In 2003, Congress and President George W. Bush signed into law the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which expressively banned the “dilation and extraction” abortion method cited in Stenberg. Advocates that challenged the federal statute in lower courts had the statute struck down, but the challenge to the federal statute did not reach the Supreme Court until 2007 in Gonzales v. Carhart.

The court in Gonzales v. Carhart addressed the issue of whether the federal statute imposed a substantial obstacle for late-term pre-viability abortions and found it to be constitutional. The act directly outlined the procedure prohibited–the delivery of a viable/living fetus to an anatomical landmark which required an additional “overt act,” an act separate from the delivery usually involving piercing or crushing the fetal skull, to be taken in order to kill the partially delivered fetus, hence countering any argument that the statute was “vague.” Further, the court addressed the possibility of other legal abortion options and stated that, “if intact [dilation and extraction] is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of ‘a living fetus.'” Here, Congress sought, and the court agreed, to create a hard line between abortion and infanticide.

Since Gonzales, states have taken to further testing the limitations of abortion regulation, introducing “fetal pain” laws. Fetal pain laws proceed to assert that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation and therefore abortion should be prohibited after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but no challenges pertaining to these laws have reached the Supreme Court yet. In fact, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole will be the first major abortion case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court since 2007.

Sifting Through Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

In 2013, the state of Texas passed into law House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), in an effort to “raise the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions.” The statute, which contained four primary provisions pertaining to abortion regulation, is currently being challenged for two of its provisions. The first is a requirement of physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within a radius of 30 miles from where the abortion is being performed. The second provision being challenged requires abortion clinics to comply with the same set of standards applicable to ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) along with compliance to standards set for abortion clinics.

The challenger? Whole Woman’s Health, a privately-owned women’s healthcare facility that offers comprehensive gynecology services, including abortion, and provides a holistic approach for the care of their patients. The organization was founded in 2003 by Amy Hagstrom Miller who saw a need in the communities of women to address pregnancy and reproductive choice not only as a medical matter, but also as something that requires a woman to evaluate her identity, goals, and future plans–an emotional and weighty process.  Whole Woman’s Health has seven offices within the United States and assists over 30,000 women per year for a variety of reproductive healthcare reasons.

Image Courtesy Of [Ann Harkness via Flickr]

At the time of trial, seven ASCs, located in five major Texas cities, were licensed to perform abortion services and would be able to comply with H.B. 2. Although Texas had over 40 abortion clinics prior to the law taking effect, it was stipulated that, at most, eight abortion-providing centers would be able to comply with the ASCs provision of H.B. 2, subjecting women exercising their right to choose to increased travel and transportation costs. During trial, the State offered expert testimony to suggest that the regulation would be “medically beneficial,” but did not prove necessity, and as such, the District Court found that the ASC requirement, in its entirety, was overly burdensome. Furthermore, the District Court also found that the physician privilege requirement “was not medically justifiable and that the burdens it imposed were not outweighed by any potential health benefits.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that res judicata barred any facial challenge and as-applied challenge (under a different analysis) on the admitting privilege and ASC compliance provisions of H.B. 2 and that the District Court erred in rejecting the State’s res judicata defense during the motion to dismiss stage of proceedings. Essentially, due to a previous lawsuit that was still pending a decision when Whole Women’s Health challenged H.B. 2 but was shortly thereafter decided, the Plaintiffs could not challenge the bill again as any injury arose out of the same claim and the parties had a legal relationship with one another.

The Court did, however, provide an analysis on the merits as well concluding that:

1. The Plaintiffs failed to prove that H.B. 2 was enacted with an “improper purpose,” mainly to close a majority of abortion clinics in Texas;
2. That the District Court incorrectly analyzed legislative factfinding of information that led to the passage of the Texas law under the “rational basis review,” which solely calls for the court to presume the law in question is valid and inquire whether that law is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest;”
3. The District Court’s analysis and the Plaintiff’s evidence did not satisfy the “large fraction test,” requiring a showing that the law imposes a substantial obstacle on a large fraction of women in Texas;
4. That the abortion services offered at the McAllen Whole Woman’s Health location, a clinic not complying with ASC standards, and lack of a “qualified” clinic for 235 miles created a substantial obstacle for a woman to obtain an abortion and therefore was granted injunctive relief until a licensed facility opened closer to the Rio Grand Valley;
5. That the Plaintiffs offered a considerable amount of evidence showing that the physicians at the McAllen location were denied privileges at the local hospital for reasons “other than their competence,” and were therefore granted injunctive relief enjoining the State of Texas from enforcing the privilege requirement; and
6. That the El Paso clinic was not granted injunctive relief based on an undue burden of women to travel over 550 miles to the nearest Texas abortion clinic in San Antonio because they could travel across state lines to Santa Teresa, New Mexico, which shares a metropolitan area with El Paso to obtain the procedure.

The Fifth Circuit largely upheld the challenged provisions of H.B. 2.

So…What Could That Mean for the Rest of Us?

H.B. 2 showed the level of impact that such abortion regulation could have on the availability of abortion services, bringing down the 40+ available abortion clinics in Texas to a mere 8-10 as outlined in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision. Such legislation could create a large and costly barrier, not only to the 5.4 million women in Texas, the second largest female populated state in the country, but to all women in the United States.

In four states–Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming–only one abortion clinic remains and it is unclear whether or not those clinics would be able to survive with the Texas-based legislation.

If such regulation passed muster in the Supreme Court, there could be an increase in self-attempted abortion and risky abortion procedures, which was noted, by the Plaintiffs in Whole Women’s Health, as a growing trend after H.B. 2 was passed in Texas. Additionally, costs would increase in travel, transportation, lodging, and in the procedure itself, potentially costing women their actual right to choose. Qualified abortion clinics would be overwhelmed, appointments would be scarce and harder to coordinate with travel and work schedules, and ultimately, those most impacted would be individuals in poverty and those with transitioning immigration status. Such legislation would force an unhealthy psychological effect on woman already making a difficult decision and consequently impose a great burden on a major woman’s right without proof that the abortion clinics functioning today are doing so at a sub-par or dangerous level.

So, one question remains–what’s next for abortion regulations in the United States?

RESOURCES

Primary

FindLaw: Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

JUSTIA: Griswold v. Connecticut

JUSTIA: Roe v. Wade

JUSTIA: Stenberg v. Carhart

JUSTIA: Gonzales v. Carhart

Legal Information Institute: 18 U.S. Code § 1531

State of Texas Legislature: House Bill 2

Additional

The New York Times: Supreme Court to Hear Texas Abortion Law Case

Planned Parenthood: Federal and State Bans and Restrictions on Abortion

Linda Greenhouse: Becoming Justice Blackmun

Guttmacher Institute: State Policies in Brief – Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion

USA Today: Idaho First State to have Fetal Pain Law Rejected

National Public Radio (NPR): High Court’s Pass on ‘Fetal Pain’ Abortion Case Unlikely to Cool Debate

Whole Woman’s Health

Bloomberg: The Vanishing U.S. Abortion Clinic

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole: What’s Next for Abortion Rights? 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.

Welcome to hypocrite junction, which is the nickname I’ve given to the corner of the internet that’s still discussing Texas Gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis speaking out about her abortion. For those of you who missed this whole story, here’s the skinny: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis made headlines last year when she filibustered against a restrictive abortion bill for 11 hours. Now, she’s running for governor of Texas, the first woman to run for that office since 1994. Currently she’s trailing the Republican candidate, Greg Abbott, but she’s still making headlines left and right. She’s tough and she’s smart, and regardless of how the polls turn out in November, she deserves a hell of a lot of respect.

In the midst of the current campaign, Davis’ book came out. That’s by no means an uncommon practice — it’s a pretty normal undertaking by candidates on the campaign trail. Davis’ book contained a story about how she has had two abortions — both for medical reasons.

Most people responded to her admission well, either recognizing the struggle that she must have gone through, or applauding the courage she had to tell her story.

And then there are the people who accused her of making it up for political purposes. I think we may need a new phrase beyond “double standards” at this point. First, she was attacked for standing up for the women who Texas’ insanely restrictive abortion law would have punished. When she first entered the national spotlight, she was called “abortion barbie.” Some of her critics went so far as to create “abortion barbie” posters of her. Click here to see them, but fair warning — they’re about as tasteful and subtle as you’d expect. Then, when her back story came to light, which includes a stint in a trailer and as a low-income single mother, people criticized her parenting skills. Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin, was one of the loudest critics. Now that Davis has come out with the story of her abortions, she’s being accused of making them up. Do you have a headache yet? Because I definitely do.

Oh, that might be why.

Politicians have lied before, sure. I highly doubt that Wendy Davis is lying in this case, but I’m not privy to either her life story or her medical history, so I can’t say that with 100 percent certainty. But come on people, do you really think that she’s stupid enough to make up that lie in the first place? And more importantly, how shitty of a person do you have to be to accuse a woman of lying about what very well might have been two of the most difficult, traumatizing, and upsetting decisions of her life.

That’s exactly where the problem is — those who are criticizing her don’t realize how normal Davis’ story truly is. Her critics are attempting to use facts here, so in order to save my sanity I’m going to take a second to debunk one of the most egregious among them. One of the claims is that Davis probably didn’t have an abortion for medical reasons, because those are relatively rare. Texas Right to Life’s Emily Horne claimed, “it is extremely rare — if not non-existent — for a woman to have an abortion because the pregnancy posed a risk to her life. As for fetal anomalies, it simply isn’t necessary to abort a child because he or she is sick or has a medical condition.”

Well one of the two abortions Davis has discussed involved an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when a fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube. It’s estimated to happen in one of 50 pregnancies, the baby most likely won’t survive, and given that the condition is life threatening to the mother, often emergency care is needed. In some cases the pregnancy may need to be terminated. As the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine’s site puts it:

Ectopic pregnancy is life-threatening. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life.

Women have abortions to end ectopic pregnancies, and they also have abortions because of the quality of life that their unborn child may be subjected to, as was the case of Davis’ other pregnancy. The baby was going to suffer severe medical issues, and Davis chose to terminate the pregnancy rather than have her child suffer. The truth is that one in three American women will have an abortion at some point in her life. The exact statistics for why are often debated, but according to a comprehensive study released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2005, four percent of women seeking abortions do so out of concern for their own health, and another three percent choose to terminate a pregnancy out of concerns about the fetus’ health.

This was not an attempt to justify Davis’ choices — they don’t need to be justified by me because they were hers and hers alone. Rather this is my attempt to point out the argumentative flaws of those who are attempting to cast doubt on Davis’ story right now because not only are their arguments disrespectful, they’re also pretty weak.

Quite frankly it doesn’t matter why Davis had an abortion, or why any other woman makes that choice. What does matter is that they have the resources to make that choice, or any other, for themselves — exactly what Davis stood for eleven hours to protect. I applaud her for sharing her story, and her work to make others who have had equally difficult choices understand where she is coming from.

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 Standing with Wendy Davis: A Story That Deserves Respect, Not Doubt appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

This is going to be a fun one!

Some of y’all know a while ago I was writing a personal blog, stumbled across Law Street, and was fired up by one of the contributors, Hannah Winsten. I wrote a rebuttal and the rest is history. I’ve been writing for Law Street for a few months now and have had the greatest pleasure in doing so, the team rocks! But in the back of my mind I always wondered when I would be able to have another encounter with Hannah. I like to think of her as the antithesis of me, she stands for everything that I don’t believe in, but in a good way!

The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, Hannah is back and she has fired me up!

Hannah wrote a piece this week entitled, “LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D” and I thought this will be a fun one. Boy was I right! I love how she starts right off with a sarcastic tone, throwing in those traditional pop culture references before pulling out the big words like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘Republican.’

First, she certainly did get it right that President Obama is getting close to being a lame duck, actually at this point he’s checked out and moved on to retirement on the golf course while still in the White House. Things haven’t gone the way he planned and homeboy has chunked deuce on the country, as pointed out by fellow Law Street writer Katherine Fabian here.

Who isn’t ready for the 2016 elections? I know I am!

Here we go again with Hannah only selecting bits and pieces of a report, only outlining what is beneficial and relevant to how she thinks and not the whole story. Yes, Politico reported a survey that states 49 percent of single women hold a negative view of the Republican Party, but it also says that 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. If you go deeper into the article you also see that 48 percent of married women prefer a Republican to a Democrat. It isn’t a very positive article for Republicans but at least it is the truth and they are trying to do something about it.

Yes, the Republican Party has been perceived as the “good ole boys” party and women were neglected in some respects. But there are still plenty of Republican women in the country and I’m sorry but the idea that Republicans support rape and domestic violence is just vile. Does Hannah see all Republicans as toothless, alcoholic, wife-beating-if-they-step-out-of-the-kitchen inbreds? Referring to conservatives as ‘conserva-turds’ is almost as ridiculous as your girl, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making the comment that “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.” Maybe you and Debbie get together in the last few days and brainstormed creative ways of calling the Republican Party abusive? Even people in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from that foolish woman and her hideous remarks.

Nowhere in any Republican initiative or in that specific poll does it say that Republicans are planning to tell anyone that they are wrong. Nowhere. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” But let’s be honest, we don’t need a poll to tell us that there is a lack of understanding between the American people and politics. Not many in my generation or in younger generations take the time to understand politics, they just go with what they hear on television and we both know that is not an accurate depiction of politics at its core.

Hannah claims that Republicans will basically shake their fingers at all women, tell them they are wrong, and expect them to go out and vote for the GOP. What exactly are you reading that says any of that? Oh right, it is all based on opinion, not fact. Let’s go back to the Politico article where it states that the group that took the poll suggests “Republicans deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, and then move to other issues.” Again, the report suggests this for Republicans. On the upside, there have been several Republicans who have come out in support of over-the-counter birth control, and many conservatives in general are Pro-Choice. Yes, Republicans should deal with the abortion topic with real facts, solutions, ideas, and then move on. Unlike Democrats who are still ignoring the facts of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi issue, ISIS, and most importantly Obamacare.

R.R. Reno made valid points in his opinion piece on the dilemma facing social conservatives, but my dear Hannah took what she wanted and neglected the rest. She assumes that this piece is to attack single women, assuming that they live with 12 cats and are terrified that they will end up alone so they recognize the strengths of getting a hand out when they are older and thus support the Democratic Party. What Reno was doing was quoting a statistic about marriage and vulnerability and then putting his two cents in on why McKinsey, a fictional character, may feel judged when someone “opposes gay marriage, because she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm — and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.”

That is a valid argument and a valid way of thinking. I know that I was raised to believe that the order of life is to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids all under the age of 30. Guess what? I’m 29, I have two degrees (working on a third), and two jobs, but I am not married or have kids and it is a scary idea sometimes. Our parents’ traditional ways were engraved in our minds as young children, but the path our parents and older generations took is not what our generation wants to take. It will take time, but not everyone feels supported in their ventures because we aren’t doing what we were “supposed” to do. I’m glad I messed up and took a different path. I’m a better person for it. Reno was simply putting those ideals in a simple statement and showing that McKinsey chose to reject the norm so that she could feel accepted in her choices, and nothing is wrong with that.

I hate to break it to you, Hannah, but if you think women are voting Democrat because they “want to have control over their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, and their own lives. They want to be able to support ourselves. They want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence,” then you should probably vote for the unrepresented party. Democrats are taking away more of your rights than Republicans. Remember that tiny thing called Obamacare? Yeah, do some research and you will find there are more restrictions than advantages. You want to live your own life without someone dictating what you can and can’t do? Should probably take another look at the Democratic Party and its belief in big government, controlling every aspect of our lives and making people believe that they are entitled to handouts instead of working hard for what they have in life. Democrats would rather rich people do the work and hand the benefits to the less fortunate and lazy. Democrats believe in helping everyone but also in accruing more debt — that doesn’t help the economy, it hurts it.

At least Republicans are trying to fix their issues, listen to the people, and change (slowly) with the times more so than Democrats. Not to mention they are taking responsibility for their errors.

If you think Hillary is going to be in the White House in 2016 you’ve got another thing coming. The same “what difference does it make?” Hillary who was so flustered and frustrated about being questioned on the topic of Benghazi that she lost her cool? The same Hillary Clinton who admitted to leaving the White House with her husband President Bill Clinton, personally $10 million in debt? I’m not sure that is someone I would want in the oval office. Let’s be truly honest. We all know that while President Clinton was busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office Hillary was really running the country. So she’s been president, just behind the scenes, and we don’t need her again.

I’ve said this before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the moment that opinion turns into something disrespectful I have an issue with it. The holier than thou, self-righteous, talking down to anyone who doesn’t agree with you tone is not cool. I enjoy Hannah’s quick wit and sarcasm but sometimes she crosses the line. Republicans are people too and in most cases highly educated people who just don’t share your views. Ease up on the conservative detest because you are simply putting yourself in the category of abuse that you talk so much about hating.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Wolf via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing appeared first on Law Street.

Hello! Welcome to my blog. I thought I’d start things off with a rather tame subject, so let’s talk about abortion!

Well not really, but sort of. Let me explain.

I was scrolling through my Facebook news feed the other day when I came upon a friend’s status, which read: “Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.” I wanted to “Like” this bit of wisdom a thousand times over, but on my way to click the little thumbs-up sign I noticed the status had 57 comments.

Fifty-seven.

After expanding the comment section (which was rapidly growing to 60…61…62…)  and reading through them, it became immediately apparent that I had stumbled onto a heated political debate comprised completely of supposed “friends” text-yelling (ALL CAPS) at each other through their comments. It is a social custom I have tried hard to avoid, as it is known to feed on the ignorance and close-mindedness of its debaters, and really who has ever had their opinion changed by a Facebook argument?

This one looked to be no different, but I began reading through the paragraphs of hardly-thought-out arguments anyway, simultaneously amused and saddened by the lack of true information being shared. The friend who had originally posted the status had stopped commenting around number 20 when one of the more opinionated Conservatives in the thread had said: “Of COURSE the man hating feminist is against having babies.”

Whoa.

First of all: this person clearly did not know the difference between feminism and misandry (but that’s a topic for another post). Second: they demonstrate the problem with posting political arguments on your profile.

Now, I am all for sharing your political opinions on social media. Unfortunately, you rarely see people posting statuses that are level-headed and based on fact. Rather, you’ll find opinions rooted in anger and ignorance that employ such devices as name-calling (as seen above) or references to religion that have no relevance to the argument. Also, more often than not, these hot-button topics like abortion, or gay rights, or feminism, spur debates that don’t go anywhere or change anything. Those topics are just small facets of larger issues that need to be addressed: sexual education, women’s health, women’s rights, the definition of marriage, etc.

Let’s look at the short and sweet status that started all this: “Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.” The reason I liked it so much is because it’s really not about abortion at all. What this status is saying in as few words as possible is that Pro-Choice is about a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. Pro-Choice says that we, as free American citizens, do not have the right to make decisions for thousands of women we have never met. It does not mean that, if given the choice, we would choose abortion. It doesn’t matter. Every woman is different and every single one should be able to decide what happens to her body. And yes, until that baby comes out of her vagina, it is part of her body.

But the topic of Pro-Choice/Pro-Life is at the tail end of a problem that begins with sex ed. Yes, those awkward hours of listening to your school’s P.E. teacher telling you how to put on condoms and explaining STIs. Did you know that not every school kid had to have that class? And of those who did, only a fraction got medically accurate information?

We all laugh at that scene from Mean Girls when Coach Carr is talking about how pregnancy will kill you. You know the one.

The not-so-funny part is that some kids actually receive that type of education from their teachers. According to this map put together by the Huffington Post, in the year 2014 several states don’t even require their schools to share information on contraception.

Courtesy of the The Huffington Post.

If there’s one thing that’s true about teenagers it’s that if they want to have sex, they will. Especially if you tell them not to. How can we expect them to have safe sex, and prevent STIs and unwanted pregnancies, if they don’t have all the information they need to know? It is only logical that if the number of people using contraception goes up, the number of unwanted pregnancies — and therefore abortions — will go down.

Sex ed restrictions aren’t merely for schools, though. Organizations like Planned Parenthood exist to give women and men information about contraceptives, STIs, abortions, adoptions, and healthcare. Yet, people continue to fight these organizations because they perform abortions. The focus, for some reason, is on just one of the many helpful services offered. But, like drugs and firearms, if you make something illegal people will still get their hands on it — and illegal abortions are definitely not safe.

So, for the safety and sanity of all the sexually active people out there: stop arguing about abortion and instead provide some alternatives to the dismal state of sex ed in America. And remember, when arguing about political issues on social media, keep it calm, accurate, and open-minded.

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 Discussing Abortion Distracts From Root Issue: Sex Ed appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly seven years of relatively little disruption, a Massachusetts abortion clinic was the site of a vivacious protest on Saturday. The protest was three times larger than the clinic’s normal crowd and took place within the confines of the now meaningless 35-foot buffer zone. Last Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley terminated Massachusetts’ buffer zones around abortion clinics in defense of protesters’ freedom of speech. A consequential storm of criticism from women’s rights groups followed. They posed the question of whether constitutionality should be the sole factor in a decision so influential.

Although I always find myself screaming on behalf of pro-choice advocates, I must admit that the Supreme Court’s ruling does follow the constitution in a very logical and technical sense. But should the Constitution be the final word? Pro-choice activists across the country certainly don’t think so.

The Ruling

SCOTUS’s decision to strike down the buffer zones stemmed from their broad definition of anti-abortion advocates’ free speech. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “here the Commonwealth has pursued interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers,” referring to sidewalks where protesters typically congregate. Eleanor McCullen, the grandma-esque poster woman for abortion opponents, argued that the buffer zones were unnecessary because the exchanges they sought to restrict were peaceful, not violent. However, an abortion opponent could just as easily whisper a dangerous threat as they could shout it.

Justice Scalia pointed out that the close, personal interactions being defended by this ruling were a perfect example of what the First Amendment is intended to protect–the right to try to persuade others. He even went on to compare these conversations to protests that occur in other scenarios, such as protesters outside the Republican National Convention or voting stations.

At this point, I know I was not alone in thinking: did he really just compare getting an abortion to filling out a ballot? It’s not like choosing a political party. It’s not a choice you can alter or change with time. It’s a choice that will change your life forever and not one that should be taken lightly. It’s a choice that you should be so firm in that a peaceful chat outside a clinic would not persuade you to change it. It’s a choice that will affect you for the rest of your life. Most importantly, its a personal choice, not one subject to public discussion and attack.

Yes, I said “attack.” Just because it’s not screaming, loud, and belligerent, doesn’t make it polite or okay–harassment can take many forms. For example, most anti-abortion protesters shame patients silently with posters calling them killers, or with pictures of living, dead, or mutilated babies. The Boston Globe shared a statement from a young woman entering the aforementioned Massachusetts clinic on Saturday. She said, “you have to walk through this circle of people staring at you and talking to you and judging you…it’s very intimidating.” This shaming can bring as much emotional pain as any violent act.

Equally as interesting is the Supreme Court’s choice to eliminate these safe zones around abortion clinics, while still retaining their own buffer zones around the courthouse. The Supreme Court’s most recent regulation on their own buffer zone states:

The term ‘demonstration’ includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services, and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.

In fact, the closest public place where protesters would be allowed to hold demonstrations is 252 feet from their front doors. So, not only do the hypocritical justices have their own buffer zone, but it is more than seven times that of the Massachusetts clinics. The irony is truly nauseating.

What the Supreme Court should have considered:

• History: In 1994, two staff members at Planned Parenthood clinics in Brookline, MA, were killed by shooter John C. Salvi. He went on to injure five more people and also shot up another clinic in Virginia, where he fled to after the initial crime. No one should approach protesters, especially abortion opponents in Massachusetts, with the naivety that they will always remain peaceful. The buffer zone was not full-proof, but at least it was some sort of safeguard to protect patients and staff.
• Success Rates of Buffer Zones: There haven’t been any dangerous altercations since 2007, when the 35-foot zone was enacted. The fact that these zones have worked shouldn’t be used as justification to terminate them, but rather to further their necessity.
• Success Rates of Anti-Abortion Protesters: The buffer zones did not make it impossible for abortion opponents to achieve their goal. Eleanor McCullen, the case’s plaintiff, testified to persuading about 80 women to forgo abortion procedures, even with the 35-foot buffer zone. Why should the Supreme Court make it easier for less-polite protesters to attack the patients, while peaceful abortion opponents are still accomplishing their objective?

The only silver lining is that the Supreme Court seems to realize the need for some safeguard for entering patients. They contended that there are alternative steps that the Massachusetts legislature can take to ensure the protection of clinic patients. But in the meantime, women in Massachusetts must forgo the protection, however seemingly scant, that they were once guaranteed before entering abortion clinics.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Talk Radio News Service via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sorry SCOTUS, Harassment Isn’t Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.