Womenstake

Just for the Record: Paying for an Abortion Is Not a Crime

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center 

Regardless of what you think about the Rick Pitino debacle, I just have to put this out there. In case you haven’t heard, Pitino -- the basketball coach at Louisville and a married father of five -- got a woman pregnant and she had an abortion. Some media outlets are taking great care to emphasize that Pitino gave his victim/one-or-two night stand $3000 for health insurance, and not specifically for the purpose of paying for the abortion. 

This implies that it would’ve been illegal for him to have actually paid for the abortion. This simply isn’t so. Paying for someone’s abortion, either by giving a woman cash, providing a credit card number to her doctor, or writing a check, is not a crime.  You can even help pay for abortions for women you don’t even know by visiting the National Network of Abortion Funds at www.nnaf.org! 

EEOC says Catholic-Affiliated College Must Provide Insurance Coverage for Contraceptives

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel, 
National Women’s Law Center 

The Charlotte District Office of the EEOC has just ruled that Belmont Abbey College discriminated against women when it removed coverage for contraceptive drugs from its employees’ health insurance plan. Read all about it here.

Belmont Abbey -- a Catholic-affiliated institution in Belmont, North Carolina -- claimed that it had a right to remove coverage for contraceptives because providing such coverage undermined the College’s religious beliefs. The District Office, keeping with the EEOC’s policy on sex discrimination and contraceptive coverage, rejected the College’s defense. 

Although the EEOC opinion did not discuss North Carolina’s contraceptive coverage law, it is worth noting that Belmont Abbey would not qualify for the law’s exemption for religiously-affiliated entities. The exemption only applies to employers that employ people of the same religion, and have as their primary purpose “the inculcation of religious values.”  Kudos to the brave employees that challenged this policy (and faced retaliation because of it)!  For more information on NWLC’s Contraceptive Coverage Project visit our web site and give us a call if you think your employer is violating the law.

Fear Factor: the Health Reform Edition

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center 

So it seems that there’s a pretty nasty rumor going around about end-of-life care in health reform.  The gist of it is “health care reform will force old, sick people to agree to refuse any health care, and just die.” 

It seems that a small provision regarding patient counseling on advance directives has been horribly misconstrued.  The new provision in health reform simply allows Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients on drafting their advance directives.  What is an advance directive? It simply informs your doctor about what your wishes are if you can’t speak up for yourself.  This idea is nothing new.  Right now, the federal Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) requires that most hospitals inform adult patients about state law regarding the rights of patients to accept or reject treatment and to formulate advance directives.  The American Medical Association (not exactly known as a radical organization), also suggest that every doctor discuss advance directives with his or her patients.

Each individual should be thinking about this important issue, because quite frankly, do you really trust your brother to make important health care decisions for you when you’re knocked out cold?!  My brother can’t bring the right type of peanut butter back from the supermarket, so I shudder at the thought…

Most people see the term, and presume that it is only about refusing care, such as “extreme lifesaving measures” but that’s simply not true.  If you want, your advance directive can state that you want the doctors to do everything humanely and technologically possible to save your life; to pull out every piece of equipment they have and keep working, because you’re only half way done with your bucket list! 

Don’t believe everything you hear about health reform. Check with us for more updates and facts.

The Supreme Court & Affirmative Action: Sometimes ‘Equality Requires Effort’

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel,
National Women's Law Center

This post is part of a series about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings are critically important in learning more about Judge Sotomayor and her legal perspectives. And, they also offer a unique opportunity for our nation to consider some of the key legal issues facing our country, including the right to privacy, equal protection under the law, antidiscrimination protections, affirmative action, health and safety regulations, and more.

The Supreme Court has held that affirmative action in our nation’s educational institutions and workplaces is permissible, principally under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII. Affirmative action programs have played a key role in opening up opportunities for women and minorities in employment, education, and other arenas.

While affirmative action is expected to be a hot-button topic, I was impressed by the tame exchange between Sen. Kohl and Judge Sotomayor yesterday. Sen. Kohl asked Judge Sotomayor if she agrees with Justice O’Connor’s belief that in 25 years affirmative action will no longer be necessary. Judge Sotomayor began by responding that the necessity of affirmative action is determined by the legislature. She then stated her agreement with the Supreme Court-endorsed principle that there are situations in which “equality requires effort” by the legislature.

So how did she respond when asked how she would evaluate any state action that accounted for race in education or employment if she were on the Supreme Court? Judge Sotomayor responded that she would “consider if those actions were constitutional or not.” Isn’t that really the job description of a Supreme Court justice? Seems like it’s not so hot-button after all...

The Possible Cause of a Third-Trimester Abortion: A Religiously-Based Refusal to Provide Information

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center

Cross-posted from RH Reality Check.

The assassination of Dr. George Tiller has brought some attention to the issue of abortions that take place late in pregnancy, inspiring many to wonder aloud how often these procedures take place and what contributing factors may leave women in this difficult position.  A myriad of physical and psychological crises give rise to this rare occurrence, but one situation possibly arose because a doctor imposed his religious or moral beliefs on his patient. 

One woman ended up having an abortion in her third trimester because a doctor purposefully withheld information from her about her fetus’s terminal medical condition.  As reported in the Washington Post, a woman discovered only a few weeks before her due date that her fetus had developed without a brain, and would never take one breath.  Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who worked with Tiller, said “Her doctor knew the problem all along but just never told her.”

While the article doesn’t give all the details, the facts suggest that the doctor withheld information because of his opposition to abortion.  He apparently believed that she would terminate her pregnancy if she knew her baby couldn’t survive, and then made a decision, based on his personal religious or moral beliefs, to withhold crucial information about her medical condition.  This is exactly the hypothetical situation we described in our paper, When health care providers refuse: The impact on patients of providers’ religious and moral objections to give medical care, information or referrals.   In a federal case called Grant v. Fairview Hosp., decided in 2006, an ultrasound technician claimed that he had a religiously based need to “counsel” pregnant patients once he found out they were considering abortion.  Fortunately the court held that his employer had a right to protect patients seeking medical care from the employee’s religious harassment.

The 'Good Old Days' Weren't So Good for Reproductive Justice

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel, 
National women’s Law Center 

The Washington Times did a feature piece called “The Last Days of Adoption,” written by Cheryl Wetzstein. It focused on the decline of a specific form of adoption—that of unrelated families adopting newborns birthed by unmarried women. There are many reasons for this, one of them being that the “good old days” weren’t so good for reproductive justice. Just a refresher, the reproductive justice movement advocates for (1) the right to have a child; (2) the right not to have a child; and (3) the right to parent the children we have. For more information on RJ, click here.

As briefly alluded to by Ms. Wetzstein, before 1973 (the year abortion was decriminalized in the U.S.) unmarried middle and upper class white women who got pregnant were shamed into hiding. They were sent away by their parents to give birth, and then give their babies up for adoption. As told in the book The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler, some of these adoptions were anything but voluntary.  Some of the single women who wanted to raise their children were denied that choice by their own parents, who placed “saving face” above all else. 

This book also provides some historical context for another phenomenon emphasized in the Washington Times article: the number of Black children adopted into unrelated families is miniscule.  In her book, Fessler explores how common ideas about race, class, gender and sexuality resulted in the much higher numbers of the adoption of white babies by unrelated families. While Wetzstein correctly notes that Black families are more likely to have relatives assume the care of a child in need, this “tradition” as she calls it, is actually a lasting legacy of our enslavement. Children were routinely sold away, never to be seen again, so our culture places (in my opinion) an extraordinary value on extended family. I have seen “informal adoption” within my own family, and I happen to think this is a good thing. 

This history provides just one example of the deeply personal, complex factors that go into each woman’s reproductive decision making. While it is naïve to think that single parents have it any easier today than in 1972, reproductive justice demands that they have the freedom (and accurate, nonbiased information) to make this choice.

People Who Are Refused Reproductive Health Care Can't Always "Just Go Someplace Else"!

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel, 
National Women’s Law Center 

Cross-posted from RH Reality Check.

The National Women’s Law Center is committed to removing all barriers to reproductive health care access. One major barrier that’s been getting lots of attention lately is religious refusals, imposed by institutions and individuals who claim that their beliefs justify denying patients access to services, information and referrals. Much attention has been drawn to the issue with the 11th hour promulgation of the Bush Administration’s HHS Refusal Rule. Currently the Obama Administration has proposed rescinding the rule. 

In the meantime, the debate rages on, with those who support refusals often claiming that providers’ “conscience” should trump patients’ right to health care, because patients who are refused can “just go someplace else.” Not only is this presumption flatly wrong, but it fails to recognize the full scope of physical, emotional and economic harms that can result from provider refusals...

Read the full post.

Reflections on Roe: Happy Thanksgiving Day

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

Next week will mark the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Whenever I think of Roe, I feel as though I am living in two worlds: one where the right to abortion is safe and secure, and another, where there are constant threats to women’s reproductive freedom. Well, I stand corrected -- I don’t actually live in the second world, I merely visit it in my professional capacity, as an attorney working to advance access to reproductive health care.

The reason I am a resident of “there are no threats to abortion access-ville” are many.  Among the blessings I count each day, I am:

• Employed and insured
• Safe from the threat of domestic violence
• Well-educated on reproductive health and contraception
• A regular patient of a pro-choice gynecologist, who will not refuse to give me the services, information or referrals I need
• Fortunate to have that gynecologist working at a hospital that isn’t Catholic 
• Living in a city where only a few protestors mill about outside of the nearest clinic
• Within walking distance of that clinic (which is a good thing since I am car-free)
• Over 17 (okay, make that WAY over 17) and not in fear of being kicked out of the house based on my decision to have a child
• Surrounded by friends and family who provide encouragement and support, but respect me and trust me to make my own decisions

Let the Patient Beware

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

The Vatican just released another proclamation on sins you can commit at the doctor’s office. This time it’s the IUD, emergency contraception, and infertility treatment, specifically, in vitro fertilization and related procedures, freezing embryos and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). PGD allows parents-to-be to identify which embryos don’t carry life-long painful genetic diseases that an eventual child will have to live with, like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia.

While lots of you may know about pharmacy refusals, a lesser known area of NWLC’s religious restrictions work addresses barriers to reproductive health care in hospitals. The largest number of religiously-affiliated hospitals with the broadest range of restrictions are Catholic-owned. These hospitals are run under the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (also known as the ERDs or the Directives). So what are these Directives?

The Directives were written by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to: 1) reaffirm the Church’s commitment to the Catholic health care ministry and 2) issue an authoritative document that provides guidance and clarity on the Church’s position (packaged as moral principles) on contemporary challenges faced by today’s Catholic healthcare executives and providers. Of course Catholic hospitals don’t provide abortions, but then again, very few hospitals do. The real impact of the Directives is on other services – those services many people wouldn’t think twice about possibly being restricted, including, birth control, emergency contraception, surgical sterilizations, counseling on the use of condoms to prevent HIV and other STDs, and infertility services. Not only will some hospitals that abide by the ERDs not provide these services, but they won’t even provide information or referrals for them.

"Pro-life"? Puh-lease!

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel
National Women's Law Center

Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy (billing itself as a “pro-life” pharmacy) in Chantilly, Virginia, is finally open, so women beware. You might remember our business plan for “Melanie’s Pro-Choice Bagel Emporium,” which actually made us laugh out loud, but here is why a pharmacy that won’t stock or sell condoms or contraceptives is no joke:

What if a woman who hasn’t seen the news stories goes to this pharmacy to purchase emergency contraception, and is told that EC is an abortion pill (and not an FDA-approved contraceptive)? What if she trusts the important pharmacist in the white coat, and doesn’t go to the nearby Walgreens to get it?

Contraceptives are crucial to the health of women and their families. Family planning allows women to space their pregnancies, resulting in healthier babies. It also allows women to bring chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes and depression under control before pregnancy.

While a woman should be able to get contraceptives, no questions asked and no justifications needed, I think it is telling that this pharmacy doesn’t provide contraceptives even if a woman can offer a reason she needs them for her health or life. 

And what about the spread of HIV? This pharmacy will not stock condoms, but I would like to think that even most “morally righteous” pharmacist would have some empathy for a married woman whose husband contracted HIV through a blood transfusion. 

A pharmacy and its employees are licensed for the protection of public health, and not to advance their own beliefs. They call themselves “pro-life”? Puh-lease!