Womenstake

‘Fertilized Egg Personhood’ Back on the Agenda

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

Remember Colorado’s crazy ballot initiative, designed to overrule Roe v. Wade by giving constitutional rights to fertilized eggs?  Voters overwhelmingly rejected it, but that hasn’t stopped the anti-choice forces who came up with the idea. Instead, they’ve simply moved on to other states.

In one state – North Dakota – legislators are actually voting for it. It’s already passed the House and is being considered in the Senate.

The North Dakota bill goes even further than the Colorado ballot initiative. Instead of just giving constitutional rights to fertilized eggs, it gives fertilized eggs rights under the state constitution and all state laws. That means it could impact literally thousands of laws, from when property rights are granted, to inheritance rights, to access to the courts. One of my favorite outrageous scenarios – what happens if you’re pregnant and go for a bike ride? The fetus would be required by law to wear a helmet! Obviously, if this bill becomes law, it would result in a legal nightmare that would clog North Dakota courts.

And of course let’s not forget that this bill could ban abortion, even if the woman’s life is at risk, and could threaten stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, common birth control methods like the Pill, and access to emergency contraception for rape and incest victims.

Local advocates have set up a campaign to stop this dangerous, intrusive, and far-reaching bill and need all of our support. 

Victory That Will Increase Access to Emergency Contraception!

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

Today, a federal district court confirmed that the FDA put ideology before science when it decided to limit non-prescription access to emergency contraception to individuals 18 and older.

The court ordered the FDA to make Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill that’s currently on the market, available to women age 17 and older without a prescription within 30 days. And the court ordered the FDA to reconsider whether to make the drug available to women of all ages without a prescription.

The court decided that the FDA’s decisions were “arbitrary and capricious [the legal standard] because they were not the result of reasoned and good faith agency decision-making.” Here are a couple more highlights from the decision explaining why:

• “The FDA repeatedly and unreasonably delayed issuing a decision on Plan B for suspect reasons. . . .”

• “[T]he record is clear that the FDA’s course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency’s normal procedures regarding similar applications. . . .”

• The FDA’s justification for making 17 year olds get a prescription “lacks all credibility.”

Now that we have a new Administration and new officials nominated to head the FDA, we look forward to an agency review that emphasizes science, not ideology. We are optimistic the FDA will remove the barriers that keep women from accessing EC, giving women of all ages a second chance to prevent pregnancy.

Pharmacy Refusals - Still Happening All Across the Country

by Judy Waxman, Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights
National Women’s Law Center

We've received yet another call ─ this time from a woman in Oklahoma who was refused contraception by her pharmacist.

Across the country, pharmacists are still refusing to fill valid prescriptions for contraception and sell emergency contraception over-the-counter.

And did you see the ABC News Program "What Would You Do?" last week? An actor playing a pharmacist refused to fill the birth control prescription of a 16-year-old girl. While most customers thought the pharmacist was wrong, only one woman was willing to speak up. Clearly, there is still much work to be done.

We need your help to make sure that every woman gets the health care she needs. Please learn more about what is happening and take action to help stop pharmacy refusals. Check out Pharmacy Refusals: What You Should Know, the first installment in our new What's at Stake series:

Watch the video

Your actions make a difference. Please join us in our efforts to protect women's access to contraception. Watch Pharmacy Refusals: What You Should Know and share it with your colleagues, networks, and friends!

Good News! Voters in Three States Defeat Abortion Restrictions

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

Voters in California, Colorado, and South Dakota sent a strong message that they will not allow abortion to be further restricted in their states. All three states rejected anti-choice initiatives that were on the ballot on November 4.

Here’s how the votes played out:

• Coloradans defeated an attempt to amend the state constitution to define a “person” as “any human being from the moment of fertilization” and give constitutional rights to fertilized eggs. The initiative would not only have outlawed abortion, but also certain forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research. Voters defeated this initiative overwhelmingly, by a vote of 73 to 27 percent.

• South Dakota voters once again said “no” to an attempt to ban abortion. They voted 55.2 to 44.8 percent to defeat an initiative that would have effectively eliminated women’s right to abortion in their state. The initiative was intended as a challenge to Roe v. Wade and its proponents have already promised to try again in 2010.

• In California, voters defeated an attempt to require teens to notify their parents before getting an abortion. The vote to defeat the initiative was 52.6 to 47.4 percent. This is the third time in four years parental notification has been defeated by voters, and California reproductive rights advocates have vowed to continue their work to protect teen safety as many times as the proponents bring the initiative back.

We thank voters in all of these states for standing up to defend reproductive choice for women and teens.

Abortion Rights on the Ballot in Three States This November

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

On November 4, voters in California, Colorado, and South Dakota will not just be voting for our next President. They will also be voting on whether women’s access to abortion is restricted – or eliminated altogether – in their state. Those three states all have abortion-related initiatives on the ballot. In two states – Colorado and South Dakota – the ballot initiatives attempt to outlaw abortion. In California, voters will decide whether to mandate parental notification before a teen can have an abortion.  Here’s a brief description of each ballot initiative, as well as links for more information.

• South Dakota. South Dakotans will vote on whether to make it nearly impossible for women to obtain an abortion in the state. You might remember that just two years ago, South Dakota voters rejected a similar abortion ban. But the same group that spearheaded that failed effort is trying again. They just won’t give up! They have made it clear that the goal is to challenge Roe v. Wade. The new initiative on this November’s ballot is a sweeping ban on abortion and it’s just as dangerous as the 2006 ban. The anti-choice activists who proposed the ban claim it allows abortions in cases of rape, incest, and when the woman’s health is threatened. But take a closer look, and you’ll see that those exceptions are very narrow and place heavy burdens on women seeking abortions and the doctors who care for them. Under this proposed ban, doctors in SD who try to care for women would face felony charges and jail time. The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families - the bipartisan coalition formed originally to defeat the 2006 ban – is working to stop this dangerous initiative. Check out their website to see how you can help them.

The President’s Council on Bioethics? More like the President’s Council on Dissing Women’s Reproductive Health Needs!

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

Last week, the President’s Council on Bioethics met to discuss religious restrictions in health care. It could have been an opportunity for preeminent providers and scholars to wrestle with the serious issue of balancing providers’ religious beliefs with patients’ need for access to health care services. Instead, it quickly became obvious that many Council members had an agenda – one that would protect religious beliefs to the detriment of patient health. 

The Council attacked the position statement on refusals by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG’s position recognizes providers’ right to refuse while at the same time saying that refusals should be limited if they “constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients, negatively affect a patient’s health, are based on scientific misinformation, or create or reinforce racial or socioeconomic inequalities.” ACOG believes that providers have a duty to refer patients when they refuse services and a duty to provide care in an emergency situation. Sounds reasonable, right? Not to the Council – one member called the position partisan and another even went so far as to reference Nazi doctors participating in the Holocaust!

The Council could not even agree on whether reproductive health services – abortion, contraception, sterilization, and in vitro fertilization – count as health services. One councilmember compared these services to face lifts. Another said a lesbian seeking IVF treatment “has very little to do with what we ordinarily consider medicine or health.” It was shocking to hear these “experts” disagree with what we know to be true – that reproductive health is key to women’s health. It’s not a “lifestyle choice,” as one member categorized it.

You can see the comments we submitted to the Council here – in our comments, we discuss how refusals impede women’s access to critical services, as well as what the law says on refusals. If you want to read the transcript of the meeting, you can find it here.

I’m angry and upset about what I heard at the meeting. But I’m trying to see the Council meeting as just another reason to keep educating people about the dangers of religious restrictions and to keep fighting against the proposed Bush Administration regulation that would expand them.

Eighth Circuit Allows Politicians to Interfere in Doctor-Patient Relationship

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

The Eighth Circuit today issued its decision in a case we’ve blogged about before, concerning a South Dakota law that requires doctors to provide anti-choice ideological propaganda to patients seeking an abortion. Under the 2005 law, doctors performing abortions are required to tell their patients, among other things, that the procedure will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”  As a reminder: in October 2006, a panel of the Eighth Circuit protected the free speech rights of doctors and the right to abortion of their patients by agreeing to halt enforcement of the law.  In April 2007, just before Gonzales v. Carhart was decided, the entire Eighth Circuit reheard the case. 

Today, the Eighth Circuit came out the other way.  In a 7-4 vote, the court decided that it was constitutional for the state to force physicians to give this “information” to women, based in part on Gonzales v. Carhart’s concern that women be protected from a decision they might “regret,” and the court reversed the decision to halt enforcement. Since today’s decision was based only on First Amendment grounds, the court sent the case back to the lower court for consideration of other claims.  In the meantime, the law will go into effect. This means that doctors in South Dakota must deliver ideological speech to women seeking an abortion or risk criminal prosecution.  As the dissent points out, this law is not about giving women information designed to assist their decision-making, rather it “expresses ideological beliefs aimed at making it more difficult for women to choose abortions.” 

Governor Granholm Gets It Too!

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

Last Friday, there was another veto of a state’s attempt to copy the federal ban upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart. This time, it was in Michigan and the veto came courtesy of Governor Jennifer Granholm. I’ve covered these copycat bills before, so just a quick reminder: anti-choice lawmakers want state versions of the federal law so that they can bring state enforcement mechanisms to bear. The state versions also often have harsher penalties than the federal law.

According to reports, Governor Granholm vetoed the measure because it did not include an exception for the woman’s health. At least she – unlike certain members of Congress and the Supreme Court – is dedicated to protecting women’s health. 

"Pro-life Pharmacies": A New Way to Deny Women Basic Health Care

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

Just when we thought we’d seen it all in the area of pharmacists who refuse to give women birth control, along come “pro-life pharmacies.” 

A Washington Post story documents a new effort by pharmacists opposed to contraception -- they are creating pharmacies that don’t stock or sell it. At all. No condoms, birth control pills, or emergency contraception. As NWLC’s Co-President Marcia Greenberger said in the article,

"I’m very, very troubled by this. Contraception is essential for women’s health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women’s health."

According to a poll by the Washington Post, these “pro-life” pharmacies aren’t even letting people know that they won’t sell contraception. As Marcia also said in the article,

"Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs. We’ve seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it at another pharmacy."

Even if a pharmacist doesn’t actively obstruct the woman, some might just leave her to fend for herself. As one owner of a “pro-life pharmacy” said,

"If I don’t believe something is right, the last thing I want to do is refer to someone else. It’s up to that person to be able to find it."

That can’t be the professional standard taught in pharmacy school.

Mark June 7 the Right Way – By Honoring the Right to Privacy

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

This Saturday, June 7, is a day that should have meaning for many in the United States. It’s the day in 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut. For you non-lawyers, Griswold is the case that said it is legal for married couples to use contraception. But that’s not all that Griswold did. Most importantly, it was the foundation of the constitutional right to privacy. You know, the right that allows interracial couples to marry (Loving v. Virginia); women to make the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy (Roe v. Wade); adults to decide to have consensual sexual relations (Lawrence v. Texas), etc. We like to commemorate the day here at NWLC with a big old shout out to the Supreme Court.

But others choose to commemorate the day in a different way. This year the American Life League is marking June 7 with a series of rallies across the country. The theme? The Pill Kills. My colleague Jill has already blogged about this. l Usually I try to let Jill have the last word and I certainly try not to give any more attention to these fringe groups. But I just can’t resist sharing some of what they claim on their website. Just so you get an idea of where they are coming from, here are a couple of their claims:

• The regular birth control pill is a “chemical abortion.”
• The pill “can make a woman more susceptible to the AIDS virus.”
• And “sexual activity outside of marriage is seriously wrong.”

Outrageous!