Reproductive Rights Prof Blog

More Republican Insensitivity and Ignorance About Pregnancy and Abortion

The Los Angeles Times - Commentary: Another Republican invokes fantasy science on abortion, by James Rainey:

Another Republican has introduced fantasy science to bolster his opposition to abortion rights funding — saying that disabled children are God’s punishment against women who abort their first pregnancies.

Bob Marshall of the Virginia House of Delegates made that statement at a press conference last week with otherRepublicans who hope to kill state funding for Planned Parenthood. . . .

Book Review of Naomi Wolf's "Vagina, A New Biography"

The New York Times:  Upstairs, Downstairs (book review of ‘Vagina: A New Biography,’ by Naomi Wolf), by Toni Bentley:

Sit back and relax, will you? Naomi Wolf has got her orgasm back. Yep. I know you were worried. We were all worried. I mean, to lose one’s orgasm at a time like this, what with Syria undergoing mass civilian murder and Romney closing in on Obama, it is really enough to put a liberated gal’s thong in a knot.

But Wolf didn’t just get back one of those little clitoral thingamajigs that Masters and Johnson so laboriously put back on the map after Freud had brushed them aside. Or rather inside, where he felt they belonged. She has reclaimed the Great Big Cosmic I-Am-a-Gorgeous-Goddess (Feminist-Goddess, that is) kind. Phew!

“Vagina: A New Biography” should have been an important book. A very important book. . . .

VA Board of Health Reverses Prior Decision That Allowed Existing Abortion Clinics To Avoid Compliance with Onerous New Regs

The Washington Post: Existing Va. abortion clinics lose exemption from strict building rules, by Laura Vozzella:

Virginia’s Board of Health did an about-face on abortion regulations Friday, voting to impose strict, hospital-style building standards even on existing clinics and reversing its June decision.

The reversal came two days after the office of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) sent a letter to board members advising them against grandfathering clinics — and warning that they could be personally liable for legal fees if they were sued after ignoring his legal advice. . . .

Reva Siegel on Dignity and Sexuality

Reva Siegel (Yale Law School) has posted Dignity and Sexuality: Claims on Dignity in Transnational Debates Over Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Dignity’s meaning is famously contested. This essay explores competing claims on dignity in late twentieth-century debates over abortion and in the first decisions on the constitutionality of abortion legislation that these debates prompted. Advocates and judges appealed to dignity to vindicate autonomy, to vindicate equality, and to express respect for the value of life itself. Appeals to these distinct conceptions of dignity are now appearing in debates over the regulation of same-sex relations. Analyzed with attention to competing claims on dignity, we can see that in the debate over same-sex relations, as in the debate over abortion, a crucial question recurs: Do laws that restrict non-procreative sexuality violate or vindicate human dignity? Agonists who hold fundamentally different views about sexuality share an allegiance to dignity, enough to fight for the authority to establish dignity’s meaning in debates over sexual freedom. Today, as in the 1970s, dignity’s meaning is being forged in cross-borders conflict over dignity’s sex.

Sue Tolleson-Rinehart on Women’s Rights and Politics

Sue Tolleson-Rinehart (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has posted Women's Rights and the Politics of Health: Contraception, Health Reform, and the 2012 Election on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

What are the very surprising politics of, not just abortion, but birth control, in health reform? Abortion is the perennial women's health Rubicon, but birth control, access to contraception, has been settled for decades, even to the extent of being considered a fundamental right, and the stimulus of Justice Douglas's construction of the right to privacy. And yet the politics of health reform and women's rights in the 2012 election has come to include a surprising juxtaposition of attempts to redefine rape, restrict abortion, and posit contraception as a threat to religious liberty. Will this dispute mobilize a measurable number of voters, and if so, in which direction will the preponderance of mobilization lie? President Obama is the current beneficiary of a substantial gender gap, but whether women voters, and young, single women voters in particular, will turn out as they did in 2008 is the question. Will threats to their access to contraception mobilize them more than social conservative voters will be mobilized by the growing boldness of the pro-life movement? This paper just asks the question: it does not yet offer an answer.

Reva Siegel on the Constitutionalization of Abortion

Reva Siegel (Yale Law School) has posted The Constitutionalization of Abortion on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This chapter analyzes constitutional decisions concerning abortion in the United States and Germany, their evolution over time, and their influence across jurisdictions. But it approaches this question from a vantage point, less common in the literature, concerned with the question of how abortion was constitutionalized. Examining the conflicts, within and across borders, that led to the first judicial decisions addressing the constitutionality of abortion laws in the 1970s sheds light on questions that prompted the birth of this body of law, and continue to shape its growth. It reveals the roots of the first constitutional decisions on abortion in modern debates over women’s citizenship. Reading the abortion decisions from this vantage point demonstrates how political conflict shapes constitutional law and constitutional law endeavors to shape political conflict.

Constitutional decisions on abortion began in an era when a transnational women’s movement was beginning to contest the terms of women’s citizenship, eliciting diverse forms of reaction, both supportive and resisting. As I show, the woman question haunts the abortion decisions, where it is initially addressed by indirection, and over time comes to occupy a more visible role, whether as an express concern of doctrine, or as a problematic nested inside of the growing body of law articulating a constitutional obligation to protect unborn life.

Continue reading

Ninth Circuit Affirms that Idaho Woman Lacks Standing to Challenge State's Post-20-Week Ban

In its recent decision affirming the district court's preliminary injunction barring the prosecution of an Idaho woman for causing her own abortion, the Ninth Circuit also upheld the district court's ruling that the woman lacked standing to challenge Idaho's "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," which bans abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy.  The Ninth Circuit found that she did not face a genuine threat of prosecution given that she was no longer pregnant, had no "concrete plan" to violate the statute, the statute excludes the pregnant woman from criminal liability, and the authorities communicated no "specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings" under the statute. The court noted that its holding "does not foreclose other constitutional challenges to [the statute], in the event that a party can demonstrate standing."  

The decision can be accessed here.

Ninth Circuit Opinion in Idaho Case Is Counter to Recent Trend in Courts of Appeals

RH Reality Check:  Finally a Limit Is Reached: Ninth Circuit Rules McCormack Can't Be Prosecuted For Her Abortion, by Jessica Mason Pieklo:

In terms of restricting access to abortion rights, the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey gave states a broad license to pass nearly any conceivable kind of restriction so long as that restriction did not pose an undue burden on a woman's right to chose to terminate a pregnancy. When faced with the question of what constitutes an undue burden, the federal judiciary has overwhelmingly come down on the side of supporting restrictions at the expense of women's access to abortion care.

We've seen this most recently when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that mandating invasive and medically-unnecessary ultrasounds prior to an abortion did not pose an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion. We saw it again when the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that forcing women to listen to misleading and inaccurate medical disclosures designed to persuade them from having an abortion was also not an undue burden on that woman.  But, according to the Ninth Circuit, there is a limit to how a state can restrict abortion access and that limit appears to be criminally prosecuting those women who seek and have abortions. . . .

Ninth Circuit Blocks Prosecution of Idaho Woman for Self-Induced Abortion

Reuters: U.S. Court says woman can't be charged for inducing abortion, by Dan Levine:

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday blocked the prosecution of an Idaho woman who aborted her pregnancy by taking pills instead of traveling to a clinic or hospital as required by state law.

Jennie Linn McCormack, an unmarried mother of three, was charged by Bannock County prosecutors last year after she ingested medication to induce an abortion. The drugs were approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and prescribed over the Internet, according to the opinion from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . .

The Wall Street Journal - Law Blog: Appeals Court Narrows Bar on Enforcing Idaho Abortion Statute, by Chad Bray:

A federal appeals court on Wednesday said that Idaho’s law allowing authorities to bring criminal charges against pregnant women who seek abortions by using medications purchased online will likely be found unconstitutional.

However, despite finding that a lawsuit challenging the statute is likely to prevail at trial, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court went too far in broadly barring a local prosecutor from enforcing the law, which allows women to be charged criminally for undergoing procedures that the state deems “unlawful.” . . .

 

Planned Parenthood Asks Federal Appeals Court in Texas To Reconsider Health Ruling

Reuters: Planned Parenthood Asks Court to Reconsider Texas Health Ruling, by Corrie MacLaggan:

Planned Parenthood asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to reconsider a ruling that would allow Texas to exclude it from a health program for low-income women, as opponents of the rule packed a public hearing to express their outrage.

A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled last month that Texas may exclude groups affiliated with abortion providers from the Medicaid Women's Health Program, which provides cancer screenings, birth control and other health services to more than 100,000 Texas women. . . .

Michelle Obama and Ann Romney's Convention Speeches Highlight Women's Role as Moms, not in the Workplace

The Huffington Post - The Blog: Michelle Obama, Moms and the Media, by Karin Kamp:

Both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney's celebrated convention speeches highlighted their role as mothers rather than using the moment to discuss the issues women face in the workplace, including the pay gap.

And the media seemed to largely ignore these issues as well, despite some moments from the conventions that could have clearly worked as news hooks. . . .

Praise and Criticism for the Democratic Party’s Platform on Abortion

Slate - XX Factor: Democrats Offer Unqualified Support for Choice. It's About Time, by Amanda Marcotte:

Democrats put forward a bold, confident face at this year's Democratic National Convention, and this attitude extended to reproductive rights. Speaker after speaker expressed support for a woman's right to choose, without all the hand-wringing and shaming that often accompanies even pro-choice discussions of abortion rights. Obama capped it off last night . . . .

Chicago Tribune/Bloomberg News – opinion column: Democrats drop a word, err badly, on abortion, by Margaret Carlson:

Why has the Democratic Party removed the sentence "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" from its platform? It was in the 2004 document but not in 2008's or this year's. Can't Democrats just throw a crumb to the many millions who are pro-choice but not pro-abortion? . . .

Women's Rights Addressed at Democratic National Convention

NBCNews.com: Democrats tackle women's rights at convention:

 See also: The Los Angeles Times: Women are front and center at Democratic convention, by Robin Abcarian