Friday, October 24, 2014
RH Reality Check: Oklahoma Court Refuses to Block Admitting Privileges Requirement, by Jessica Mason Pieklo:
Oklahoma can enforce its new anti-abortion admitting privileges requirement beginning November 1, a state district court judge ruled Friday.
SB 1848 mandates all reproductive health care clinics have a physician with admitting privileges at a local hospital on-site when abortion procedures are performed. . . .
Elle: Ending the Silence That Fuels Abortion Stigma, by Cecile Richards:
It’s hard to imagine a medical procedure in this country that carries the stigma and judgment that abortion does. Women’s experiences are often seen through the lens of cultural and political battles. If a woman says that she’s relieved after having an abortion, she may be judged for being heartless or unfeeling. If she says that she feels regret, anti-abortion activists use this to push for laws that restrict access to abortion or laws that assume women are incapable of making their own decisions without the interference of others.
So instead, we just don’t talk about it. That’s how abortion came to be discussed as an “issue” instead of an experience. . . .
In ELLE's November issue, features director Laurie Abraham wrote a trenchant, honest essay about her abortions. Here, we share stories from other women who had abortions, to show that different women have different reasons for having an abortion, and that the procedure inspires all sorts of feelings—all of them, valid.
The Los Angeles Times: New class of abortion providers helps expand access in California, by Lee Romney:
Ever since the Planned Parenthood health center here opened, the six cushioned recliners in the recovery room had been in steady demand every Friday.
That's when a physician would rotate through to perform abortions for four hours. When everyone in the crowded waiting room knew why the woman next to her was there, when they all had to walk past a cluster of antiabortion protesters.
But a state law that went into effect in January has authorized nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants to perform a method of first-trimester abortion known as vacuum aspiration. Previously, only doctors were allowed to do so.
With the expanded pool of providers, this Marin County clinic can now carry out the procedure as routinely as breast exams and birth control consultations, stripping away the taint of "abortion day." . . .
Thursday, October 23, 2014
ThinkProgress: North Dakota Is Quietly Preparing To Enact The Most Radical Abortion Measure In The Country, by Tara Culp-Ressler:
In less than two weeks, North Dakota voters will head to the polls and cast their ballots on a radical effort to overhaul the state’s constitutionand redefine legal personhood in a way that includes fertilized eggs. The latest polling indicates that Amendment 1 may have enough support to pass, making North Dakota the first state in the country to enact a radical “personhood” measure — something that abortion opponents have been attempting to do for four decades. But hardly anyone is talking about it. . . .
MSNBC: This conservative cause is the GOP’s worst nightmare, by Irin Carmon:
There is one word that has defined the Colorado Senate race and it’s a word that Republican Rep. Cory Gardner and other GOP candidates across the country are tired of hearing. The word is “Personhood.”
For months, local reporters have been asking Gardner, who is challenging Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, to explain his contradictory and opaque positions on a Colorado Personhood measure Gardner once supported and a federal bill he still does. Such measures would extend legal protection to fertilized eggs and are intended to ban all abortion as well as common in-vitro fertilization processes and some forms of birth control, including the IUD and emergency contraception. . . .
It was quiet that afternoon on the Personhood terrace, when Keith Mason openly admitted he doesn’t expect Amendment 67 to pass. Then he nodded towards Planned Parenthood and grinned: “We just cost them $4 million.” . . .
Reuters: Oklahoma judge allows law on abortion pills to take effect, by Heide Brandes:
An Oklahoma judge said on Wednesday he will allow a law governing the use of an abortion-inducing drug to take effect as planned on Nov. 1, over the objections of abortion rights advocates who said the measure is poor public health policy that could put women at risk. . . .
In case anyone is having a sense of deja vu in reading this story: a similar Oklahoma law made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court, briefly, before the Court changed its mind and decided not to hear the case. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had invalidated the law, and the state sought U.S. Supreme Court review. After granting cert, the U.S. Supreme Court certified two questions to the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking clarification about the scope of the statute. After the Oklahoma court answered these questions and interpreted the statute broadly, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ as improvidently granted.
Comments on ACA Contraception Accommodation Submitted by Public Rights/Private Conscience Project on Behalf of Legal Scholars
Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (Columbia Law School): PRPCP Leads 60+ Law Professors In Submitting Comments On ACA Contraception Accommodation, by Kara Loewentheil:
Back in August the Obama Administration responded to the Supreme Court’s opinion inHobby Lobby and its order in Wheaton College by issuing two new sets of regulations to govern the accommodation process for employers with religious objections to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement. One was an interim final regulation, promulgated by the Department of Labor, that responded to the Wheaton College order by allowing objecting non-profit organizations that believed notifying their insurance company or third-party administrator (TPA) of their objection was also a violation of their RFRA rights to simply notify the government directly, after which DOL and HHS would work together to notify the insurance company or TPA. (I’ve written elsewhere about why this is, not to put too fine a point on it, a somewhat pointless exercise). The other was a proposed regulation that would define what kinds of for-profit entities could seek an accommodation under RFRA based on the Hobby Lobby ruling.
These regulations were open for public comments, and PRPCP drafted comments on both rules that were signed by more than 60 prominent legal academics. . . .
Friday, October 17, 2014
RH Reality Check: The Hidden Costs of Abortion Restrictions, by Carole Joffe (Univ. of Calif.):
“You walk into our surgery center and it’s so cold and scary. There’s no art. The lights are bright, the recovery rooms smell like bleach. All the staff are wearing gowns and head and foot covers and the patients have to wear the same thing … and there’s nothing comforting about it. The warmth is gone.”
As recent events in Texas have made clear, when it comes to abortion care, the worst outcome of the current onslaught of state-imposed targeted regulations of abortion providers (TRAP laws) is the forced closing of clinics. But even clinics in affected states that manage to stay open suffer costs. . . .
The New York Times: Take Back the Right: Katha Pollitt's 'Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights', by Clara Jeffery:
“I never had an abortion, but my mother did. She didn’t tell me about it, but from what I pieced together after her death from a line in her F.B.I. file, which my father, the old radical, had requested along with his own, it was in 1960, so like almost all abortions back then, it was illegal.”
Thus begins “Pro,” the abortion rights manifesto by the Nation columnist, poet and red diaper baby Katha Pollitt. While parents with F.B.I. files may be exotic, her departure point is that abortion was and is not. . . .
The Chicago Tribune: Review: 'Pro' by Katha Pollitt, by Martha Bayne:
. . . Over the book's 200-odd pages, Pollitt — longtime columnist for The Nation and all-around feminist public thinker — charts with passion and intellectual rigor just how much the lives of American women have changed since 1960, and how very much they haven't. . . .
Here's an interview with Pollitt:
And a roundtable on Minnesota Public Radio among Pollitt, Sarah Stoesz, President of the Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund, and Teresa Collett, Professor of Law at the University of St Thomas:
MPR News: The politics and policy of abortion
The Huffington Post -- The Blog: The Abortion Conversation We Need To Have, by Katha Pollitt:
Abortion. We need to talk about it. I know, sometimes it seems as if we talk of little else, so perhaps I should say we need to talk about it differently. Not as something we all agree is a bad thing about which we shake our heads sadly and then debate its precise degree of badness, preening ourselves on our judiciousness and moral seriousness as we argue about this or that restriction on this or that kind of woman.
We need to talk about ending a pregnancy as a common, even normal, event in the reproductive lives of women -- and not just modern American women either, but women throughout history and all over the world, from ancient Egypt to medieval Catholic Europe, from today's sprawling cities to rural villages barely touched by modern ideas about women's roles and rights. . . .
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
The New York Times: Texas Abortion Clinics to Reopen Despite a Future in Legal Limbo, by Erik Eckholm:
A day after the Supreme Court blocked a Texas law that had forced abortion clinics to close, some of the shuttered facilities prepared to reopen, pleased at the reprieve but mindful that the legal fight was far from over.
Tuesday’s order increased the chances, legal experts said, of a major face-off in the Supreme Court over a crucial question: What restrictions add up to an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion? . . .
While the order did not necessarily reveal how or whether the Supreme Court might ultimately rule, it did indicate that the justices “saw the potentially irrevocable damage if the clinics were forced to close,” said Caitlin E. Borgmann, a professor at the CUNY School of Law in New York.
. . . The basic issue, Ms. Borgmann said, is how much a state may restrict abortion without banning it altogether.
“How much travel is too much? How much do costs matter? These are questions the Supreme Court has never answered,” Ms. Borgmann said, adding that appeals of the Texas law could give the court an opportunity to clarify the issue. . . .
The Richmond Journal of Law & the Public Interest is seeking submissions for our 2015 Spring volume. We welcome high quality and well cited submissions from academics, judges, and established practitioners who would like to take part in the conversation of the evolution of law and its impact on citizens.
We currently have five total openings for articles for the two general issues of our volume. As a Journal that centers in large part on the Public Interest, we would be happy to accept and review articles on a broad range of topics that affect citizens on a national level or in the Commonwealth of Virginia. For a sense of what we are seeking for our general issues, please feel free to visit http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive.php.
If you would like to submit an article for review and possibly publication, or if you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to contact our Lead Articles Editors - Rich Forzani and Hillary Wallace. They can be reached, respectively, at firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com.
The New Republic: It's Astounding That We're Still Debating the Pill After 50 Years, by Rebecca Leber:
It wasn't easy to create a birth control pill in an era where contraception, along with abortion, was still illegal in most of the country. In his new book, The Birth of the Pill, veteran journalist Jonathan Eig writes on the history of how four people came together to make oral contraceptives a reality in the 1950s. (Ann Friedman reviewed it for the New Republic here). The creators wouldn't have expected the challenges women still face today to their reproductive rights.I spoke to Eig about this in the context of the contemporary debate on abortion and contraception in America. . . .
The New York Times: Supreme Court Allows Texas Abortion Clinics to Stay Open, by Adam Liptak:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed more than a dozen Texas abortion clinics to reopen, blocking a state law that had imposed strict requirements on abortion providers. Had the law been allowed to stand, it would have caused all but eight of the state’s abortion clinics to close and would have required many women to travel more than 150 miles to the nearest abortion provider.
The Supreme Court’s order — five sentences long and with no explanation of the justices’ reasoning — represents an interim step in a legal fight that is far from over. But abortion rights advocates welcomed what they said was the enormous practical impact of the move. Had the clinics been forced to remain closed while appeals went forward, they said, they might never have reopened. . . .
The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order apparently reflecting the views of six justices, blocked the surgical-center requirement entirely and the admitting-privileges requirement as it applied to clinics in McAllen, Tex., and El Paso.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they would have allowed the law to be enforced. . . .
See also: SCOTUSblog: Court blocks abortion limits in Texas, by Lyle Denniston.
This is significant, because when the Court last November considered only the admitting privileges portion of this law on an emergency basis, it refused to block the Fifth Circuit's ruling that allowed the law to take effect. That time, the 4 liberal Justices dissented.
Monday, October 6, 2014
The Houston Chronicle : Abortion providers ask Supreme Court for reprieve, by Brian M. Rosenthal:
Abortion providers urged the U.S. Supreme Court for a reprieve from Texas' tough new regulations Monday evening, turning to the high court four days after a federal appeals court ruling to allow enforcement of the regulations forced all but eight clinics in the state to close. . . .
Politico: New abortion cases could reach Supreme Court, by Jennifer Haberkorn:
The Supreme Court was asked Monday to block parts of a Texas law that restricts access to abortion, an emergency request that could be just the first of several abortion-related cases to reach the court in the upcoming term.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Thursday allowed Texas to implement a law that restricts abortion providers and immediately shuttered all but seven of the state’s remaining clinics. On Monday, the women’s health facilities asked the high court to essentially undo that decision, allowing them to remain open as the legal fight proceeds. . . .
The Huffington Post -- The Blog: Reproducing Race, by Dov Fox (University of San Diego Law):
More than a million children in the U.S. each year are conceived with donated sperm or eggs. Sperm banks and egg vendors offer online ordering and direct shipping of donor materials that prospective parents can shop for based on SAT scores, personality tests, and celebrity likeness.
"[W]hat we try to do is give [parents] as much choice as possible," explains Dr. Cappy Rothman, co-founder of the world's leading sperm bank, California Cryobank. "If our customers wanted high school dropouts," he adds, "we would give them high-school dropouts."
What many of these (mostly white) parents want is a child who will look like they do. This means picking a donor who is, like them, white. . . .
Friday, October 3, 2014
ThinkProgress: Alabama’s Abortion Law Puts Minors On Trial And Gives Their Fetuses A Lawyer, by Tara Culp-Ressler:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against Alabama this week in an attempt to overturn what the group suggests may be the most radical parental consent law in the country. Under a new law that went into effect this summer, minors who are seeking to bypass their parents’ consent to get an abortion are essentially put on trial. The state is allowed to appoint a lawyer for their fetus and call witnesses to testify about the teenager’s character. . . .
Fifth Circuit Panel Allows Texas Ambulatory Surgical Center Law To Take Effect, Shutting Down Most of State's Clinics
The New York Times: Reversal Allows Abortion Law, Forcing 13 Texas Clinics to Close, by Manny Fernandez:
Thirteen abortion clinics in Texas were forced to close immediately after a federal appellate court on Thursday sided with Texas in its yearlong legal battle over its sweeping abortion law and allowed the state to enforce one of the law’s toughest provisions while the case was being appealed.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, will have a far-reaching effect on abortion services in Texas, lawyers for abortion providers said. The ruling gave Texas permission to require all abortion clinics in the state to meet the same building, equipment and staffing standards as hospital-style surgical centers, standards that abortion providers said were unnecessary and costly, but that the state argued improved patient safety. . . .
Nearly two-thirds of abortion clinics in Texas must close immediately after a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the state could enforce its law requiring those facilities to be built to the same stringent standards as hospitals.
The requirement is part of a sweeping piece of legislation called House Bill 2, which includes several measures that undermine women’s access to abortion. The mandate was struck down in late August by a federal judge in Austin, who ruled that it was unconstitutional because it put an undue burden on women seeking healthcare. He put the requirement on hold while the state appealed. . . .
The decision is available here.