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.

When actress Sofia Vergara and businessman Nick Loeb were engaged, they created and froze embryos, planning to use a surrogate to have a child. But they split up in 2014, and since then, a legal battle has ensued over the frozen embryos. Loeb wants to use one of those embryos to have a baby despite Vergara’s opposition. And allegedly the reason why they split up was because he wanted kids and she didn’t. A legal contract they signed when they were still together made it clear that the embryos could only be used if both parties consented. But it didn’t specify what would happen if they split up, which is why in May of 2015 Loeb sued Vergara for the right to have his own baby.

Now, Loeb is using a different tactic. He filed a lawsuit on “behalf” of the frozen embryos, which are named Emma and Isabella (yes, they already have names). Loeb wants full custody and the chance to implant them in a surrogate. He contends that they have the right to live and to benefit from a trust fund that Loeb set up for them to fund their future education and health care costs. This sounds like a very bizarre case, and like Vergara says, it’s not ideal to bring their mutual embryos to life considering the couple is separated and she is now married to actor Joe Manganiello. But considering the suit was filed in Louisiana, a very pro-life state, it’s not unfathomable that Loeb gets his way.

STRONG CONTENDER FOR THE STRANGEST HEADLINE YOU’LL SEE TODAY: “Sofía Vergara sued by her own embryos” https://t.co/M83TIVe4gj

— Jon Manuel (@JonManuel) December 7, 2016

If that happens, he would get full custody and Vergara would have no parental rights. Loeb has also previously argued that it’s unfair that women can bring children into the world even if the man objects. “Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects?” he wrote in an op-ed in 2015. Quoting religious beliefs about the sanctity of life, he claimed that the embryos should be seen as lives rather than property. He wrote that he has dreamt of being a parent his whole life, but that during their relationship it became apparent that it was not a priority for Vergara, who already has a 22-year-old son from an earlier relationship.

According to her lawyer, Vergara wants the embryos to stay frozen, as she is Catholic and could not let them be destroyed. She claims that Loeb just wants to take advantage of her celebrity status to promote himself. Loeb’s claims that he truly wants children and that he believes that keeping their embryos “frozen forever is tantamount to killing them.” No matter who is right, the case is unusual, and it could be precedent-setting.

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 Sofia Vergara Sued by Her Own Frozen Embryos 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.

As reported previously on Law Street, Oregon and California recently passed legislation to allow women seeking certain hormonal contraceptives to bypass a doctor and a prescription and speak with a pharmacist instead in an effort to make contraception more accessible for women.

Women in Oregon were able to start getting these contraceptives prescription-free in January.

As of Friday, the law in California has now been enacted and women can begin to use this service.

Advocates believe that this will make it easier and less costly for women to obtain contraception. The issue of unintended pregnancy has been at the forefront of many discussions now because of the heavy debate on abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S. (6.1 million) are unintended. Fifty-four percent of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. resulted from a non-use of any method of contraception.

Obviously, one of the best methods to prevent unintended pregnancy is using some form of contraception. Unfortunately, for some women it is not just as easy as picking it up from their local pharmacy. In most cases, a woman must see a doctor in order to get the prescription they need–costly and sometimes inconvenient or impossible for some women.

There is one key difference between California’s and Oregon’s laws. There is no age-restriction for women seeking contraception in California but in Oregon you must be 18 or older and have obtained your first prescription from a doctor.

Other positive steps were taken this week when the FDA loosened regulations on the abortion-inducing pill mifepristone, now allowing women to request a medication-induced abortion up to 70 days after conception, rather than the previous 49 days. The second drug is also now allowed to be taken at home rather than in the doctor’s office.

This news comes at a time when many clinics have been forced to shut down around the country due to strict abortion laws in many states. The Supreme Court has been hearing testimony, debating the issue and will decide on the constitutionality of these key legislations. But for now, the FDA’s decision is a step in the right direction to lessening the burden on women in some of these states where legislatures are trying to outlaw legal abortion.

There is good news coming out of other parts of the West, too. In Colorado, a program was started in 2011 that aimed to have long-lasting contraception, like IUDs and implants, accessible and free to teenagers. Through this program, by 2013, the rate of teenage pregnancy had dropped 40 percent. However, due to the initial funding running out, Gov. John Hickenlooper asked the state for funding to continue the program. Republican lawmakers said no, but the program has survived through private grants and donations, which was an unexpected win for health providers in the state. As a lot of abortion providers are forced to shutter in many parts of the state, these small reproductive rights victories are key.

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 Reproductive Rights Breakthroughs in Oregon and California 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.

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.

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

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

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

Noah goes on to say,

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexis Evans

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

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

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.

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.

By now, it is not unusual to hear stories of states trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade by closing medical facilities that conduct abortions, or imposing laws that restrict the amount window for a woman to get an abortion. But it seems like recently states have been looking for even more out-of-the-box ways to restrict access to this service. Let’s take a look at the four newest bills presented to state legislatures, and what’s wrong with each of them.

1. Making women wait 72 hours to get an abortion

New bills in Missouri would require women to wait 72 hours after deciding to have an abortion to actually get one. In some states, there is a 24-hour waiting period, but Missouri would be the first to extend that by two full days. There would be no exceptions for cases of rape.

There really isn’t an explanation for this law besides the fact it stalls women looking for an abortion, and may provide an opportunity to talk them out of it. By making women wait three days after deciding to have the procedure, and actually going through with it, she may feel pressured into changing her mind. And without exceptions to the law, women who have been raped or face medical emergencies are put in a dangerous situation.

2. Letting women sue their doctors up to 10 years after their abortion if they regret having it

In Iowa, a bill has been introduced that would allow women to sue their abortion provider long after the abortion has taken place. The reason is not because of medical malpractice, lack of information, or the procedure was done incorrectly, but because they regret their abortions.  Women would have up to 10 years to sue their doctor after having the procedure. Women would be allowed to sue for compensation because of emotional distress. Even women who sign a consent form for the procedure would be eligible to sue their doctors if they think more information about alternatives, or potential dangers from abortions could have been provided to them.

Some women do regret the abortions they have, but that isn’t the fault of the doctor. If a woman is given accurate information about the procedure, signs consent forms, and the doctor does the procedure correctly, why would he or she be held responsible for emotional damage afterward? A doctor is supposed to inform a patient of her options, and should not be held accountable for someone’s regret, no matter how painful, down the road.

3. Make sure not just one, but both parents of an underage girl seeking an abortion are notified

Also in Missouri, there is a new bill that would require not one, but both parents of a girl seeking an abortion to be notified before the procedure take place. Currently, at least one parent of a minor is notified before a girl can have an abortion, but this law goes beyond that. It presents a number of problems, among them being children who may not know both of their parents, but be restricted from receiving an abortion because of this legislation. Additionally, young women may choose to cross state lines or have riskier abortions if they think their parents won’t find out. While the bill does include exceptions for parents who have been convicted of sexual abuse of the child, or if the courts had previously terminated their rights, it doesn’t include any exceptions for medical emergencies. So, if a parent were out of town, or just not a part of the girl’s life, her access to abortion would be cut off.

Parental notification has been contentious throughout the abortion debate because it concerns people who are underage. But most states have adequate parental notification laws with just one parent- adding this law serves as nothing but a hinderance and waste of time for women looking to get an abortion.

4. Restrict abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy

West Virginia has been the most upfront in their aim to restrict access to abortion- by trying to limit them to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who perform abortions after this time period could be fined up to $5000, and face between 1 to 5 years of jail time. As a reminder for everyone- Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court decision that settled this decades ago) said that women are able to have abortions until the pregnancy is “viable,” and went on to say that 24 weeks into pregnancy is the earliest a child is viable. Simple math shows us that West Virginia is at least four weeks short with this bill.

Perhaps the most troubling part of each of these bills is the way the people who introduce them try to cover their true intentions. Rather than just saying, “I’m against abortion and trying to restrict it,” lawmakers bring in pleas for “family values,” and perhaps most insulting, by insinuating a woman who wants an abortion isn’t capable of making the decision to get one without a plethora of “help” from lawmakers in her state. State legislatures are allowed to pass laws for the betterment of that state, but it’s hard to take some of these laws seriously when they were so obviously written to restrict access to abortion.

[Slate] [RH: West Virginia] [Iowa Bill] [RH: Missouri 1] [RH: Missouri 2]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 New Laws Restricting Women’s Access to Abortions appeared first on Law Street.