Reproductive Rights Prof Blog

State Court Blocks Montana From Defending Abortion Parental Consent Laws

The Missoulian: Montana AG barred from defending abortion consent laws, by Charles S. Johnson:

A Helena district judge has blocked the state from defending two state laws that require minors to obtain parental consent before obtaining abortions.

Planned Parenthood of Montana, which challenged the laws, claimed victory Tuesday. A spokeswoman said the group now will ask District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock of Helena to permanently enjoin the two laws to stop them from being enforced. . . .

U.S. Abortion Rate at a 40-Year Low

The New York Times: Abortions Declining in U.S., Study Finds, by Erik Eckholm:

The abortion rate among American women declined to its lowest level in more than three decades in 2011, according to a new report released Monday that is widely considered the country’s most definitive examination of abortion trends. . . .

The decline in abortions from 2008 to 2011 was mirrored by a decline in pregnancy rates. . . .

Abortion a Divisive Issue in North Carolina Race for U.S. Senate

CharlotteObserver.com: Abortion question divides North Carolina’s U.S. Senate candidates, by Renee Schoof & John Frank:

North Carolina’s fiercely competitive U.S. Senate race could turn on one of the most divisive issues in politics.

The abortion question shows up the stark contrast between incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan and her GOP challengers. . . .

ACOG Reverses Ban on Treating Men

The New York Times: Responding to Critics, Gynecology Board Reverses Ban on Treating Male Patients, by Denise Grady:

After months of protest from doctors and patients, a professional group that certifies obstetrician-gynecologists has lifted a ban it imposed in September and now says its members are free to treat men.

The decision, announced Thursday by theAmerican Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, was a reversal of its September directive, and followed partial concessions the group had made in November and December in an effort to mollify critics. . . .

New Yorker Provides Interactive Chart Showing Vanishing Abortion Providers in U.S.

The New Yorker: Interactive Chart: America's Vanishing Abortion Providers:

In this week’s issue of the magazine, Eyal Press investigates American Women’s Services, a troubled chain of abortion clinics run by a physician named Steven Brigham. . . .

The existence of such clinics, which cater mostly to low-income women with limited options, is not entirely surprising. As reputable doctors, hospitals, and medical schools have increasingly distanced themselves from abortion, substandard providers have materialized to fill the void. The interactive chart above, based on data from the Guttmacher Institute, shows the number of abortion providers in the United States for various years from 1973 to 2008. . . .

Study Shows Pre-Abortion Ultrasounds Do Not Dissuade Women from Abortion

abcNEWS.com: Viewing Ultrasound Unlikely to Deter Women from Abortion, Study Finds, by Gillian Mohney:

A new study has found that pregnant women who plan on having an abortion are not often dissuaded by viewing an ultrasound.

The study, designed to find out if pregnant women who view their ultrasounds are significantly less likely to go through with a planned abortion, was published this month in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal. It looked at the cases of more than 15,000 women, the total number of pregnant women who went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Los Angeles in 2011 and were planning to have an abortion. . . .

Caroline Corbin on Corporate Exemptions from the Contraceptive Coverage Rule

Caroline Mala Corbin (Univ. of Miami Law School) has posted the following articles on SSRN:

Corporate Religious Liberty: Why Corporations Are Not Entitled to Religious Exemptions:

One of the main questions before the Supreme Court in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius is whether large for-profit corporations are entitled to religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In particular, the plaintiffs seek religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s so-called “contraception mandate.”

This is an entirely novel claim. It is also without merit. The Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect the religious practices of individuals and churches. They do not, and should not, extend to the for-profit corporate form for at least three reasons. First, corporate religious liberty makes no sense as free exercise is understood to (a) protect an individual’s relationship with the divine and (b) respect the inherent dignity of the individual. Furthermore, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission provides no theoretical foundation for corporate religious liberty: The justifications for extending free speech protection to for-profit corporations do not translate into the free exercise context. Second, there is no precedent for the claim that for-profit corporations are entitled to religious liberty exemptions; on the contrary, precedent points in the other direction. Third, recognizing corporate religious liberty will benefit employers at the expense of their employees, who risk losing protection of the employment laws as well as their own free exercise rights.

 

Corporate Religious Liberty:

 

Do for-profit corporations have a right to religious liberty? This question is front and center in two cases before the Supreme Court challenging the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate.” Whether for-profit corporations are entitled to religious exemptions is a question of first impression. Most scholars writing on this issue argue that for-profit corporations do have the right to religious liberty, especially after the Supreme Court recognized that for-profit corporations have the right to free speech in Citizens United. 

This essay argues that for-profit corporations should not – and do not – have religious liberty rights. First, there is no principled basis for granting religious liberty exemptions to for-profit corporations. For-profit corporations do not possess the inherently human characteristics that justify religious exemptions for individuals. For-profit corporations also lack the unique qualities that justify exemptions for churches. Citizens United fails to provide a justification as its protection for corporate speech is based on the rights of audiences and not the rights of corporate speakers. Second, as a matter of current law, neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Religious Freedom Restoration Act recognizes the religious rights of for-profit corporations. Finally, corporate religious liberty risks trampling on the employment rights and religious liberty of individual employees.

Amicus Brief of Guttmacher Institute in Hobby Lobby Case Available Online

The Guttmacher Institute: Guttmacher Supreme Court Brief Puts Data Front and Center in Support of ACA's Contaceptive Coverage Guarantee: 

The U.S. Supreme Court should hold that owners of for-profit companies cannot assert religious objections to deny their employees insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies in employer-sponsored health plans, argues a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Guttmacher Institute and Professor Sara Rosenbaum (a member of the Guttmacher board of directors and professor at The George Washington University). The brief’s legal team was led by former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger and Indiana University Professor (and Guttmacher board member) Dawn Johnsen.

At issue in two related cases (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius), to be argued before the Court on March 25, is a provision under the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) guaranteeing that most private insurance plans cover the full range of prescription contraception without cost-sharing for patients. Churches and other houses of worship are exempted from this requirement and an accommodation is in place for religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations. However, a number of for-profit companies are challenging the federal policy, claiming they too should be able to opt out of covering some or possibly all methods of contraception on the grounds that their owners deem those methods morally objectionable.

Continue reading