Womenstake

Not an Anniversary to Celebrate

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

This week marks one year since the Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Carhart the case upholding a federal ban on a medically-approved abortion procedure that does not contain protections for women’s health. What has happened in the year since the case was decided? 

The most direct impact of Gonzales v. Carhart is the attempt to pass copycat state bans. From our friends at the Guttmacher Institute we know that 23 bills have been introduced in 11 states so far. I’ve blogged about the ones that seem to be moving, including one that was vetoed by Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. These bans, like the federal ban, fail to include an exception for women’s health. And they make it possible for the state to aggressively prosecute violations, with stricter jail terms for doctors in many versions. 

Even more troubling, states accepted the Court’s invitation to give women information that will discourage them from having an abortion. Most prominent so far in the current legislative session are bills focused on ultrasounds – 16 measures have been introduced in 11 states. Measures in eight states would require women seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound even if not medically necessary. In some of these states, the woman would be forced to view the image, although two bills allow the woman to avert her eyes if she doesn’t want to see it (gee, thanks!). Like Carhart, in which the Supreme Court said banning a procedure necessary for women’s health was actually for women’s own good, mandatory ultrasound bills purport to benefit women but are really about distrusting women and undermining women’s decision-making power. As our friends at Feministing said, "Because obviously women who have made the decision to end a pregnancy won't understand the 'truth' unless it's put up on an easy-viewing screen."

So here we are, one year later. It’s clear that Gonzales v. Carhart set the stage for new attempts to chip away at women’s ability to control their reproductive lives. This is not an anniversary to celebrate.

Governor Napolitano Gets It!

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

Last Friday, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed her state’s copycat of the federal ban upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart. As I’ve reported before, these state bans are an attempt to bring state enforcement mechanisms to bear and punish doctors more harshly than the federal law allows. The Arizona bill is a prime example – it did not cap jail time doctors could face (in the federal law, doctors can go to jail for “only” two years). 

Governor Napolitano gets why these bills are so troubling and misguided. As she said in her veto letter, “Rather than introducing more criminal penalties into the relationship between a woman and her physician, let us focus our collective efforts to remedy the root issue of unwanted pregnancies by addressing such important topics as family planning and the prevention of sexual violence against women.” Exactly.

An Unstable State for Many Black Women

by the National Women’s Law Center

Last week the National Urban League released its annual report, The State of Black America. This year’s edition is subtitled “In the Black Woman’s Voice” to highlight the specific challenges Black women face. Responding to the report, staff at the National Women’s Law Center collected facts that detail the struggles of so many Black women in America in the areas of economic security, education and health. 

Economic Security

• Black women are more than three times as likely to be poor as White, non-Hispanic men.
• More than one in 10 Black women live in extreme poverty.
• Black women working full-time year-round earn 37 percent less, on average, than White, non-Hispanic men.
• Families with children headed by Black women have median incomes nearly 50 percent lower than that of families with children headed by White, non-Hispanic men.
• Black families who pay for child care spend 10.3 percent of their income on it, compared to 5.6 percent for White, non-Hispanic families.

It's No Fun To Say "I Told You So"

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

One of the immediate impacts of Gonzales v. Carhart was a rush in state legislatures to copy the federal ban. Just a reminder: the federal ban prohibits a medically-approved abortion procedure without making an exception for women’s health. Anti-choice legislators want their own state version because they want harsher penalties for doctors and more aggressive enforcement of the law. 

Louisiana was the first to pass a copycat ban, doing so only three months after Carhart came down. At the time, I said more states would follow suit. Looks like states are well on their way to proving me right:

• On Monday, Arizona’s copycat ban passed the House. It now goes to the Senate, where a companion bill has already received preliminary approval.
• In Wisconsin, a copycat ban just passed the Assembly and now goes to the Senate. 
• The Kentucky Senate has passed a version, as has the Michigan Senate. 

Sometimes I hate being right.

Weekly Round-Up

by Mary Robbins, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

Fresno State is proving its “commitment to Title IX” by adding two new women’s sports for the 2008-2009 season: swimming and diving and lacrosse.

Private abortion clinics in Spain began a five-day strike to protest what they called “persecution” by anti-abortion campaigners and government inspectors.

Women continue to outnumber men in college entrance and graduation rates.

Bloggers at RHRealityCheck.org discuss ways to improve sex education.

Legislation in Indiana that would require doctors to deliver a controversial message to abortion patients was reintroduced Thursday.

David Cohen at Feminist Law Professors comments on the AALS panel on Gonzales v. Carhart, and notes a specific discussion on the effects of the decision on women of different socioeconomic groups.

A new study by the Guttmacher Institute looks at the reasons women have abortions, and finds that often decisions to end pregnancies are based on desires to care for the children they already have.

Rachel at Women’s Health News discusses how we should deal with teens who become mothers in light of the efforts of teens at a Denver high school to reverse a policy requiring young mothers to return to school the day after giving birth.

Gonzales v. Carhart – Soon, It Won't Be Academic

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women's Law Center

At the recent Association of American Law Schools meeting in New York, one of the “hot topics” for discussion was the Supreme Court’s April 2007 decision Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld a federal ban on a medically-approved abortion procedure. The panel was made up of some of the country’s leading law professors. Evidently the panel was quite interesting and has stimulated further discussion in the blogosphere. The Reproductive Rights Prof Blog provides a summary of the panel; Professor Dorf further reflects on his and another panelist’s take on overturning Roe; and Feminist Law Professors provides some substance to back up what an audience member said about who the law affects.

I missed the panel, but this Carhart discussion reminds me that soon it won’t be just academic. The state legislatures are opening for the 2008 legislative session, and we’ll be seeing the implications of the case play out soon enough. Womenstake will continue to keep you updated as things move forward . . . or backwards.

A Little Math on Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

According to a speech Justice Ginsburg gave on Sunday, she doesn’t think the Court will overrule Roe v. Wade.  I wish I could be as optimistic.  But when I do the math, I get a different answer:

# 1: In Gonzales v. Carhart, Justices Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito refused to reaffirm Roe.

# 2: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have anti-choice records.

# 3: Justices Scalia and Thomas repeatedly say that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

By my count, #1 + #2 + #3 = Roe hanging by a one-vote thread.  That is, Justices Scalia and Thomas are open about their desire to overturn Roe. All indications point to Justices Roberts and Alito agreeing with them.  It is only Justice Kennedy – who helped gut Roe in Gonzales but hasn’t said he would overturn it entirely – who keeps Roe alive.

And here’s a little extra credit: What is 70 + 4?  The average age (74) of the four remaining Justices who have voted to uphold the core principle of Roe v. Wade – Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. 

That means that upon the departure of one of these four or Justice Kennedy, his or her replacement could then provide the fifth vote to overturn Roe altogether. 

According to my math, Roe v. Wade is in danger.  But perhaps Justice Ginsburg is using a new mathematical formula I don’t know about.  I sure hope so.

Doctors react to Gonzales v. Carhart

by Gretchen Borchelt

Check out this editorial in the latest edition of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).  In it, two doctors respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart.  My favorite part:

“At our recent Annual Clinical Meeting in San Diego, I asked several colleagues if they intended to make referrals to the Supreme Court.  All said ‘No’ because the Court is not available for telephone consultations and makes rounds infrequently.” 

Obviously their tongues are firmly planted in cheek, but the message of the piece – the problem of the government getting involved in the day-to-day practice of medicine – deserves attention.  From Terri Schiavo to coerced anesthesia to Carhart, the doctors make it clear that politicians should not make medical decisions for the rest of us.

Paternal consent (NOT A TYPO)

Jill Morrison and Gretchen Borchelt

Yes you read that right.  My fingers didn't slip.  Ohio wants a woman to seek permission from whoever impregnated her before she can get an abortion.  Sure-we've all heard about paRENTtal consent before, but some legislators in Ohio are trying to require paTERNal consent.   The bill would require written consent from the "father" of the fetus.   

"FATHER?"  Wait a minute – the Supreme Court in 1992 said that it is unconstitutional to require a woman to notify her husband of her plan to have an abortion.  In Casey, the court said that the spousal notification law "embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry."

But hey-it's a new Supreme Court, right?  I guess if the Supreme Court can ban a type of abortion and justify endangering women’s health in order to protect "the bond of love the mother has for her child." then perhaps paternal consent doesn't sound so insane.  Don’t want to mess with those “fatherly” bonds. . .

Next, this group from Ohio might want to bring back the marital rape exemption (See Section G). (You know, the laws that said if you bought the cow you are entitled to the milk forever?) No need to shortchange men on complete ownership of women’s bodies.

Impact of Gonzales v. Carhart

Louisiana is a (much harsher) copycat

by Gretchen Borchelt

And so it begins…

State legislators in Louisiana were thrilled about Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on a medically-approved abortion procedure without an exception for woman’s health.  So thrilled that they couldn’t wait to copy Congress and pass their very own state ban.  Late last month each chamber of the legislature did so, passing versions modeled after the federal ban (HB 614, SB 161).  But the Louisiana politicians weren’t satisfied with everything about the federal ban.  Nope, they thought the penalties for doctors – two years and/or fines – simply weren’t good enough.  So they made them much harsher. Now in Louisiana, doctors who perform the banned procedure face up to 10 years and/or up to $100,000 in fines.  Last Friday Governor Blanco signed both of them and they have already taken effect. Sadly, this is likely only the beginning of state attempts to ratchet up the federal ban.