Abortion

  • April 26, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    In 1994 federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle banded together to advance legislation aimed at tackling the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence. It was and remains a noble goal. Indeed it represented one of the more communitarian pieces of legislation of the time. The nation it seemed, even if fleeting, to be concerned about bettering the quality of lives of some of the nation’s most vulnerable, as opposed to catering solely to the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful.

    Today reauthorization of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), as noted on this blog, is mired in mindless obstructionism. The reauthorization measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, and finally passed the Senate today on a 68-31 vote. But House Republicans are itching to keep obstructionism alive, promising their own reauthorization measure.

    Though the Justice Department has reported a decline in domestic violence, a 2011 National Census of Domestic Violence Services revealed that more than 67,000 victims of domestic violence received federal help in a single day.

    Moreover since enactment of the VAWA it has become apparent that services need to be extended, such as free legal services to victims, authority for Native American officials to respond to abuse of Indian women by those not covered by Indian jurisdiction, more help to undocumented people who are victims of domestic violence, and to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender victims of domestic violence.  

    It is this effort to help more people that spurred opposition. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) complained about the reauthorization measure’s additional services. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said the bill’s efforts to expand the reach of domestic violence programs were meant to “invite opposition.”

    Right-wing lobbying groups have also ramped up opposition to reauthorization. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said the VAWA reauthorization bill “does real violence to the budget and individual freedom.

    Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a Tea Party favorite, took to the Senate floor to declare that he was not voting against helping victims of domestic violence. He said he was voting against “big government and inefficient spending ….”

    Sen. Patrick Leahy, who introduced the reauthorization measure with Michael Crapo (R-Idaho), lauded today’s Senate vote, and said he hoped the House “will soon consider this legislation ….”

    But The Associated Press reported recently that a group of Republicans in the House is working to create a different reauthorization bill. It would likely strip the Senate’s efforts to help undocumented immigrants, Native Americans, and gays, lesbians and transgenders.

    During the Senate’s drawn-out effort to reauthorize the VAWA, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told The New York Times that the Republican opposition “is part of a larger effort, candidly, to cut back on the rights and services to women. We’ve seen it go from discussions on Roe v. Wade, to partial birth abortion, to contraception, to preventive services from women. This seems to be one more thing.”

  • March 20, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Lawmakers bent on undermining the rights of women are not of course confined to the nation’s capital. They just happen to draw plenty of attention, especially when they attempt to scuttle health care policy intended to protect the health of women or decide to slow expansion of the Violence Against Women Act, a law that has been reauthorized, with bipartisan support, twice since its passage in 1994.

    But over the past two years numerous state lawmakers have garnered increasing notice for their strident efforts to make it nearly impossible for women to obtain abortions. Louise Melling, director of the ACLU’s Center for Liberty, noted last year that the states were on a disconcerting roll of attacking reproductive rights. In the process, Melling said the states were stigmatizing women, by essentially saying they are incapable of making decisions on abortions. These state efforts say “women can’t make these decisions, we’re not … trusted decision-makers, and we need assistance as we make this decision,” Melling told ACSblog.

    Reporting for The Huffington Post, Laura Bassett notes that Idaho’s attempt to force women to undergo an ultrasound and hear anti-abortion propaganda from the state before choosing to have an abortion included a ridiculously offensive comment from state Sen. Chuck Winder.

    Before the Senate passed the bill, some opponents noted it failed to provide an “exception for rape victims, incest victims or women in medical emergencies,” Bassett wrote.

    Winder responded to the concern by suggesting that women may not know when they’ve been raped.

    “Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this,” he said. “I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was the pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.”

    Bassett notes that if Idaho’s bill becomes law, victims of rape or incest seeking an abortion will be steered to centers that aim “to dissuade women from having an abortion.”

    Idaho is among the slew of states that have joined with national lawmakers in an increasingly aggressive attack on women’s rights. Blog for choice provides more information on the “serious nationwide outbreak of politicians who are practicing medicine without a license.”

    What is likely not surprising is that many of the right-wing politicians peddling destructive health care policy for women, are also in the camp of decrying the landmark health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as a heavy-handed attempt by the federal government to regulate the health care industry.

    Former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger (pictured), at last year’s ACS National Convention, lambasted the argument that the ACA was a grave threat to liberty.

  • July 29, 2011
    Video Interview

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Right-wing policy makers have spent more than a year bemoaning, as a serious affront to liberty, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) provision that requires people to carry, starting in 2014, a minimum amount of health care insurance or pay a penalty. Supporters of the health care law point out, however, that without the minimum coverage provision, the landmark health care reform law would be ineffective, allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, thereby undercutting a main impetus of the law, which is to make sure that the vast majority of Americans are able to carry health care insurance.

    Despite the hue and cry from the Right over the ACA’s minimum coverage provision, government mandates on abortion continue to proliferate in the states, especially those states with legislative bodies controlled by right-wing policy makers.

    Yesterday, the North Carolina Senate successfully enacted a law that will require women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours, receive state-mandated “counseling,” and a state-mandated ultrasound before receiving the medical procedure. Both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly overrode Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto of the measure. Twenty-five states now require government-mandated “counseling” and waiting periods before women can receive abortions.

    Following the Assembly’s action, Gov. Perdue issued a brief statement saying, “The Republican’s social agenda has, with this bill, invaded a woman’s life as never before – by marching straight into her doctor’s office and dictating the medical advice and treatment she receives.”

    The Center for Reproductive Rights President and CEO Nancy Northup ripped the new law as politically motivated and constitutionally suspect.

    “It is extremely disheartening that the North Carolina legislature would go out of its way to enact a law that uses the doctor-patient relationship to advance a political agenda,” Northup said in a press statement. “When women go to the doctor, they don’t expect to be held hostage in an attempt to change their minds. They rightfully expect to be treated as an adult capable of making their own personal decisions. This law is an affront to a woman’s dignity and a violation of her constitutional rights.”

    At the ACS 10th Anniversary National Convention, former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, a partner at O’Melveny & Meyers, blasted the Right’s rhetorical and legal attacks on the health care law’s minimum coverage provision, saying he’s had enough of the lectures about government encroachment on liberty.

    “We hear the talks about government intrusions into health care – that this represents an extraordinary step about liberty,” Dellinger (pictured) said during a panel discussion on the constitutionality of the ACA. “And I just cannot, any longer, refrain from making the observation that it is really ironic and disturbing to hear that liberty lecture come from people talking about [a] government takeover of medical care, many of whom would legislate the imposition upon women of unnecessary waiting periods, government scripted lectures, compulsory sonogram viewings, and government mandated unsafe medical procedures.”

    Louise Melling, director of the ACLU’s Center for Liberty, in an interview with ACSblog, said this year has been an especially bad one for reproductive rights. (And this interview came before the action in N.C. She talked with ACSblog following a panel at its national convention on reproductive rights.)

    The bills passed are making it more and more difficult for women to find physicians who can perform abortions, and having a stigmatizing effect as well, Melling said.

    “It is also a way of stigmatizing to say ‘women can’t make these decisions,’ we’re not … trusted decision-makers, and we need assistance as we make this decision,” she said.

    And what is awfully “scary,” Melling said was that politicians are not paying a price for supporting the draconian laws.

    “Nobody is really standing up to say this is not ok, these laws are just rolling right through,” she said.

    Watch her entire interview below or download a video podcast of it here. The video is also available at this site.

  • May 13, 2010
    BookTalk
    Red Families v. Blue Families
    Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture
    By: 
    Naomi Cahn & June Carbone

    By Naomi Cahn, John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School & June Carbone, Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School  of Law 

    Released last week, a new study found that women over the age of 35 in the U.S. gave birth to more babies than did American teens -- a reversal of the situation 20 years ago.

    Given our research into family formation, this doesn't surprise us. In Red Families v. Blue Families, we discuss which families are succeeding in the 21st Century. It is "blue" families, which invest in women as well as men, delay family formation until after young adults reach emotional maturity and financial independence, and view sexuality as a private matter, that have adapted to the new information economy. By contrast, the "red" family system is a traditional one that continues to preach abstinence, early marriage and more traditional gender roles. The religious backlash against the new values has locked red families into a war against modernity. The book also shows how cultural controversies over abortion, gay marriage and single motherhood are masking the country's real divisions, and then suggest practical steps to reshape the debate surrounding red and blue America.

  • February 22, 2010

    Activists hope to once again make Nebraska the battleground over whether the Supreme Court should reaffirm its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, recognizing a woman's right to an abortion. Just introduced in Nebraska's unicameral legislature is a bill acknowledged by advocates on both sides of the issue to be unconstitutional under the Court's present jurisprudence.

    From the Omaha World-Herald: [links added]

    The state has played a role on the national stage before, with a 1997 law banning the controversial late-term procedure known medically as intact dilation and extraction, or D&X.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 overturned that Nebraska law, upholding its previous abortion decisions and dealing a setback to abortion opponents, who call the procedure "partial-birth" abortion.

    Those opponents gained hope seven years later, when the justices on a more conservative Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on the D&X procedure.

    Now abortion opponents are looking for opportunities to push the court even further in restricting abortion.

    The law would ban abortions after 20 weeks, disregarding the question of viability, which occurs around the 24th week of pregnancy and was relied upon as a boundary for state regulation in the Supreme Court's 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. In Casey, today's swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy co-wrote the majority opinion, joined by the liberal wing of the court. The Center for Reproductive Rights' Janet Crepps told the World Herald that this is reason for comfort to the pro-choice community, although Justice Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the Court in its two most recent decisions regarding reproductive rights.