Here's this week's reproductive rights news brought to you by the women of Our Word (and at least one of the guys!). If you see something you find relevant please email it to me, bayprairie at gmail dot com

This week's news has been dominated by stories about the South Dakota abortion bill, an amended version of which passed the South Dakota House by a vote of 50-18 on Friday, Feb 24th. The bill (HB 1215) would ban all abortions in the state except to save a pregnant woman's life and it's been sent the bill to Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who has indicated support for the measure. Also in the news are related stories of other states mirroring South Dakota's efforts.

::::more below the fold::::also posted at Our Word::::

US states join abortion revolt to bring back ban

South Dakota approved an even more restrictive anti-abortion bill last month, allowing no exceptions for rape and incest. Its governor is considering whether to sign the bill “If there is rape, it really is an injustice to that woman,� said Roger Hunt, the bill’s sponsor. “But there are remedies for that woman. Family, friends, pregnancy crisis centres are there to help her, as well as adoption procedures to assist her. But the unborn child whose life is terminated has no remedy.�

I was reading last night and I saw a reference to an imagined Billboard. Let me describe it to you. Picture, if you will, a photograph of a 13 year old girl, a tight shot, head and shoulders, she's unsmiling and appears upset. Superimposed next to her photo are the words:

Please Mr. Governor, don't force me to have my step-daddy's baby.

And that's how far we've come, as this is exactly what the grandstanding, gleeful, abusive legislators in South Dakota intend. Before your eyes now you see the true face of the anti-choice movement. They have no concern at all about any particular woman, or girl's, situation, one size fits all. If you are pregnant you will give birth. They do not care about your health, your age, whether or not you were raped, whether or not you were abused and impregnated by a family member. If you're pregnant your womb is under their control.

The only exception is if you are dying. And in many cases I fear that dying might be preferable to the "sentence" imposed by the legislature.

This bill is so outrageous I'm seeing push-back from unexpected and unlikely places. Back to the Times article cited above:

Two anti-abortion bills were filed last week in Missouri and there are further plans for legislation in Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Some US pro-life groups are concerned that midwestern states are moving too fast without a clear strategy. They fear a case may end up reaching the Supreme Court prematurely and may prompt a verdict that would extend abortion rights.

Politicians are rethinking their position in Missouri.

Missouri anti-abortion leaders question strategy of bills to ban procedure

One might think that a bill filed this week to ban nearly all forms of abortion in Missouri would have anti-abortion groups dancing in the marbled halls of the Capitol.

Instead, they're saying "not so fast."

Leaders of three of the state's top anti-abortion groups say they're uncomfortable with the strategy behind the sweeping legislation.

Meanwhile, some leaders in the solidly anti-abortion Legislature say the ban is not a top priority for legislators. And Gov. Matt Blunt told reporters Thursday, "I'm not convinced it's necessary" to pass a general abortion ban.

This is Matt Blount in that story signaling a possible stand-down. Matt Blount is so anti-choice it's unreal. The South Dakota lege is overplaying its hand. Matt Blount has his finger in the wind, unsure which way the wind of public opinion might blow. Now he's concerned about his electability.

I see unexpected push-back from the local newspaper in the Baptist stronghold of Waco Texas.

Say you're 'pro-life'? Please be more specific

This week, with South Dakota having enacted an abortion ban in a quest to force a Supreme Court showdown on Roe, it suddenly has become quite incumbent on each of us to inquire: "Pro-life"? Would you please be more specific?

Would you require a teen impregnated by a rapist to bear the villain's child?

Would you require an incest victim to bear her step-daddy's child?

South Dakota would. How about you?

These are the questions that should arise every time the issue of abortion is broached anymore. Because if the balance tips at the Supreme Court, how states deal with these excruciating contingencies could be in the lap of everyone who runs for statehouse.

South Dakota's abortion ban would allow an exception to save the mother's life. Talk about an imposition in a drama-drenched decision. Doctors don't know if childbirth will endanger a woman's life. They only have probabilities.

And this gentleman doesn't seem to want to "own" the South Dakota bill either.

Bush may not be supportive of abortion bill

WASHINGTON - At a news conference Monday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested that President Bush does not support a South Dakota bill that would ban nearly all abortions in the state.

McClellan did not say that Bush opposes the state bill, but reiterated the president's long-standing position on abortion. Bush is "pro-life with three exceptions," McClellan said.

Those exceptions are rape, incest or when a woman's life is endangered.

One thing many noticed this past week in relation to South Dakota is this:

For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual

I understand that you're probably really angry right now. Maybe you're reading a blog expressing that anger -- the anger that your state thinks it knows better than you what to do with your body. Maybe you're anxiously wondering where the nearest abortion clinic is, now that you will have to leave the state to get to one. If you have a serious medical condition, you might be doubling up on birth control methods, leading to a lot of worry and possibly negative side effects.

But what you need right now isn't the righteous anger the rest of the blogosphere will give you. You need more.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, when abortions were illegal in many places and expensive to get, an organization called Jane stepped up to the plate in the Chicago area. Jane initially hired an abortion doctor, but later they did the abortions themselves. They lost only one patient in 13,000 -- a lower death rate than that of giving live birth. The biggest obstacle they had, though, was the fact that until years into the operation, they thought of abortion as something only a doctor could do, something only the most trained specialist could perform without endangering the life of the woman.

The posting is an online manual for setting up an abortion facility. I'm not linking to the site as I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that my actions might result in putting potentially deadly information into the wrong hands. I assume though, that many of you have already read it, or have heard about it. Many have. Make no mistake about this either, in the wrong hands these instructions would be deadly. I'm going to include a link to a comment by Moiv at Our Word this past week regarding the post.

Yes, I read it last week
Comment by moiv posted March 3, 2006 - 2:14am

"Molly" wrote that she has seen an abortion procedure performed. I've seen hundreds, but that doesn't qualify me to perform one. Even so, I know more than enough about the practice and procedures of surgical abortion to have recognized about half a dozen ways to seriously injure or even kill a woman by following her instructions.

When a highly skilled doctor with many years of experience in abortion care read Molly's post a couple of days ago, his immediate response was "OHMYGOD" -- followed by his supremely well qualified opinion that if illegal practitioners use this online manual as their guide, doctors in hospitals all across South Dakota are going to have their hands full.

What he said . . .

I include information from the site as an illustration of the concern that is awakening, and as a glimpse of a potential future for this country if abortion is outlawed once again. Passing laws criminalizing abortion won't stop them, witness Brazil, where abortion is criminalized and yet the rates are still very high. Criminalizing abortion will result in women taking matters into their own hands as exampled above, or seeking abortions in a black-market. 21st century anti-choice Americans overlook the fact that Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme court ruling that found a woman has the right to a safe abortion. The Supreme court found that, in its wisdom, because of a predominance of unsafe and often deadly abortions occurring at the time. If many women intend to abort pregnancies, isn't it society's responsibility to see that women are allowed to do so safely? To me that's what Roe vs. Wade represents. It's a legal "bandage" thats been applied to a nation's bleeding wound. People grew tired of hearing about women they knew being injured, or dying. I feel the purpose was a compassionate one, an effort to stop the deaths while also taking into consideration the state's interests. Everyone has an opinion about what Roe is. The question should also be asked, why did it come about. What motivated it. It came into being for a reason. Undo it, the reason will return.

Something else I've noted this weekend that's related to South Dakota and the online abortion clinic manual is that this past Friday and Saturday the top search phrase at technorati was "do it yourself abortion". For over 24 hours this was the phrase used most to search their blog index. "do it yourself abortion".

Unbelievable.

The South Dakota bill as passed is also not only bad law, it will be creating new areas within the law, something that's not been seen before in the past. Perhaps one of the interesting points about the South Dakota Law was mentioned at Lawyers Guns and Money. Due process for the unborn.

South Dakota: Aftermath Round-Up

-In comments to this post, commenter Joe uncovers a remarkable fact about the SD ban on abortion: "In passing the bill, the Senate amended it to make it even more pro-life, adding a sentence to state that the due process clause of South Dakota's constitution 'applies equally to born and unborn human beings.'" If applied seriously, the absurd effects of this claim would be immediately manifest, starting with state micro-regulation of a woman's pregnancy. Every miscarriage would have to be the subject of a significant policy investigation.

Due process for the zygote and fetus is something new under the sun, an American innovation. Here is Lynn Paltrow on the subject taken from her Testimony to the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion.

It is not possible to treat pregnant women and fetuses as competing legal entities in the context of abortion without undermining the health, well-being and safety of all pregnant women and new mothers.

If pregnancy is a "legal" "relationship," with opposing rights and the possibility of state oversight, the implications for the civil rights, health and well-being of pregnant women and their children is in serious question. Does a pregnant woman who cannot overcome her addiction to cigarettes violate this "legal" "relationship," making her an appropriate subject for court ordered treatment, arrest for child endangerment, or child welfare interventions? Does a woman lose her right to informed medical decision when she becomes pregnant? Could the state mandate that all women deliver by c-section because of perceived benefits to the unborn child? Could the state outlaw vaginal births after c-sections?

Similarly, if pregnancy is viewed as a legal relationship between completely separate parties having separate, competing rights, shouldn't every woman who has experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth be questioned about the extent to which she may have contributed to that pregnancy loss and whether those actions or omissions constituted an appropriate legal waiver?

These questions do not represent far-fetched hypothetical possibilities.

For the last 30 years anti-abortion rhetoric has portrayed abortion as murder and the women who have those abortions as "baby killers" and "murderers." Increasingly, all pregnant women are being viewed as proper subjects of the criminal law and court supervision. Pregnant women in more than 30 states including South Dakota have been arrested based on the claim that a health problem, action or circumstance a woman experienced during pregnancy can be treated as child abuse of she continues to term, or murder if she suffers a miscarriage or stillbirth. Women in California, Florida, Utah, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Carolina have been charged with manslaughter and even first-degree murder for having suffered unintentional stillbirths. Prosecutors in these cases have argued that something they did or did not do during pregnancy caused these pregnancy losses. In some cases the pregnancy loss is blamed on an untreated drug problem, in another a severely depressed woman was arrested after an attempted suicide might have contributed to a pregnancy loss, and in another it was the pregnant woman's decision to delay having a c-section that transformed her into a murderer. Such prosecutions continue despite the lack of authorizing legislation, court rulings rejecting such misuse of state law, and in spite of the overwhelming oppositions from medical, child welfare and public health organizations.

Today, many pregnant women and newly delivered birth mothers also face child welfare interventions based on the claim that something they did or did not do during pregnancy constitutes child abuse or neglect. Women for example who have tested positive for illegal drugs and even for drugs prescribed to them during labor, have had their children removed by child welfare authorities who viewed these women as somehow violating a contractual or legal relationship to their unborn children. This is true in spite of the fact that not a single state, including South Dakota, has enough drug treatment available for all of the pregnant and parenting women who want and need it.

Finally, the earlier exampled of forced surgery (see below) over the objections of pregnant women, husbands and doctors has been the direct result of giving legitimacy to the idea of legal separation between pregnant women and the fetuses they carry.

This Task Force must recognize that to oppose the recognition of fetal person-hood as a matter of law is not to deny the value and importance of potential life as matter of religious belief, emotional conviction, or personal experience. Rather, by rejecting such a new legal construct, the Task Force can improve both maternal and fetal health and ensure that no family ever had to endure the losses that Angela Carder's family suffered at the hands of the state, in the name of fetal rights.

(editor: The forced surgery case mentioned above follows:)

I begin with the case of Angela Carder: Angela Carder at 27 years old and 25 weeks pregnant became critically ill. She, her husband, and her parents as well as her attending physicians all agreed on treatment designed to keep her alive for as long as possible. The hospital, however, called an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus. A lawyer appointed for the fetus used the anti-abortion argument that fetuses are separate legal persons with independent rights. This lawyer argued that the fetus had a right to life and that what Angela Carder, her husband, and her family wanted did not matter. Despite testimony that a cesarean section could kill Ms. Carder, the court ordered the surgery, finding that the fetus's rights were controlling. The surgery was performed over her explicit objections and resulted in the death of both Angela and her fetus. The fetus, or as in Angela's parents words - their "unborn grandchild" - died within two hours and Ms. Carder died two days later with the c-section listed as a contributing factor.

The South Dakota legislators go to places even Solomon, in all his wisdom, would not dare to tread. That must mean they have nothing that even approaches wisdom. This bill will guarantee misery for some South Dakota Women.

The only remaining problem for the lege now seem to be funding the court challenge.

South Dakota's Genius Scheme to Outlaw Abortion
The trick? Privately fund a public initiative overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

A campaign to push the legislation through the U.S. court system up to the Supreme Court where South Dakotans can lead the charge to overturn Roe v. Wade, will cost over $1 million. South Dakota doesn't have that kind of money. So Rounds is studying ways of accepting into the state treasury private funds with which to wage the battle in the name of the South Dakota citizenry. In short,the well-heeled opponents of abortion are going to hire the public state government to fight their battle.

But while South Dakotan legislators have portrayed their state's political attitude as singularly pro-life, many argue the citizenry, if given a chance to approve or disapprove the bill, would come out against a ban. Thelma Underburg, the Executive Director NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, argues that defeat of a recent bill in the state legislature calling for a referendum, in fact, shows that "despite the right to life people saying it is a pro-life state, they know . . . if it ever came to a vote of the people, the majority think that a safe and legal abortion is a right."

The concern about how South Dakota's voters really feel about the effort to outlaw abortion is reflected in Governor Rounds's publicly affirmed reservation about the legal costs that the state will rack up defending this bill in the federal courts against the enjoinment that Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota reportedly plans to seek. Never fear, say pro-life groups, an anonymous donor or donors are waiting in the wings to pony up $1 million for the abortion ban's legal fees.

When asked if the state will accept such legal gratuity, the Governor's Press Secretary Mark Johnston answered, "There certainly has been discussion about that cost, and there does need to be provisions for receiving that money into the treasury," and the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader reported on Friday that a bill was being passed to set up such a special pro-life war chest in the state's treasury. But when probed more specifically about the anonymous donation, Johnston checked himself, answering "I can't think of whether [the Governor] has said that publicly, so I can't answer that."

The bill as it stands now, as in the Governor's hands for review.

Governor Rounds' Comments

Rounds issued a technical veto of a similar measure (HB 1191) in 2004 because he said it would have erased the state's current abortion restrictions while it faced a court challenge (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 2/23). Rounds during a news conference on Friday said he and his aides will study the bill to decide whether the language in the current legislation fixes the problem of the 2004 measure (Davey, New York Times, 2/25). "If the bill is correctly written, then I will seriously consider signing the bill," he said on Saturday, adding, "It would be a direct frontal assault on Roe v. Wade" -- the 1973 Supreme Court decision that effectively outlawed state abortion bans (Conlon, Reuters, 2/27). Rounds has 15 days to decide whether to sign the measure (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 2/23). If he does, the bill is scheduled to take effect on July 1 (New York Times, 2/25).

Here's a highly recommended article from the Denver Post that was just put up today with all the latest info:

Abortion? Never was much choice in S.D.

Sioux Falls, S.D. - When 20-year-old Courtney found out three weeks ago that she was pregnant, it hit the single mother - already struggling with a 1-year-old - like a brick. She cried, she talked to friends, and she came to a heart- wrenching decision: She wanted an abortion.

Then the real work began.

She had to take off two days from her mechanic's job in a small South Dakota town, find a ride and travel six hours one way to the state's only abortion clinic.

Some friends in her place had left the state. Others kept a baby they didn't want.

"You see the billboards. You know there's a stigma here," said Courtney, who, waiting in a Sioux Falls abortion clinic, would give only her first name.

"This is supposed to be a country of freedom. I don't think you should have to feel humiliated about a choice that is best for your own life," she said.

And to bring to an end this rather long post here's a list of editorials in the publications of this country on the South Dakota law courtesy of the Kaiser Foundation, for those who care to read more.

Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report Summarizes Editorials, Opinion Pieces About South Dakota Bill That Would Ban Abortion

____________

This past week we also had possible encouraging news on the Emergency Contraception front. I cite a story from the Hartford Connecticut Courant, due to additional on this matter that's specific to Connecticut.

Wal-Mart Agrees To Stock Contraceptive
Reversal On Morning-After Pill Meets Skepticism From Blumenthal

Officials of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced Friday the company will reverse its earlier policy and stock emergency contraception pills in all of its pharmacies (Nationwide) effective March 20, saying the giant retailer could not justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not to carry the morning-after pill.

:::snip:::

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal ruled Thursday that Wal-Mart should be dropped from the insurance plan that covers the state's 188,000 employees and retirees if it did not start stocking prescriptions for emergency contraception.

Blumenthal said Friday that he was skeptical of Wal-Mart's policy reversal.

"I remain significantly concerned by their statement that the prescription may be declined under some circumstances. We will immediately ask Wal-Mart to clarify that it will dispense this covered drug to every woman with a prescription."

Ron Chomiuk, vice president of pharmacy for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said the company expects more states to require it to sell emergency contraceptives in the months ahead.

"Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it," Chomiuk said in a statement.

Chomiuk said the company will maintain its conscientious objection policy, which it said is consistent with the tenets of the American Pharmaceutical Association. The policy, except where prohibited by law, allows any Wal-Mart or Sam's Club pharmacy employee who does not feel comfortable dispensing a prescription to refer customers to another pharmacist or pharmacy.

Based on the concern exhibited for the women of his state by Attorney General Blumenthal I think its safe to say this is definately a victory for the women of Connecticut at the very least.

I also commend the Courant for the accuracy of their headline. I've been following the Plan B issue in the nation's news for a while now and I rarely see the drug described by what it's mechanism truly is, a contraceptive. Thanks for the accuracy.

____________

This week sees another Supreme Court ruling concerning clinic violence.

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters in Unanimous Ruling

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — Anti-abortion groups gained a victory in the Supreme Court today as the justices ruled, 8 to 0, that abortion clinics cannot rely on federal laws against racketeering and extortion to prevent demonstrations against abortions.

The opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer turned on two words. The justices ruled that clinics could not use the decades-old Hobbs Act, which outlaws the obstruction of commerce by "robbery or extortion," to stymie protesters.

"Physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the Hobbs Act's scope," Justice Breyer wrote. To try to use the act as the National Organization for Women and other abortion-rights advocates have done "broadens the Hobbs Act's scope well beyond what case law has assumed," he wrote.

Moreover, the ruling noted, Congress specifically addressed the needs of abortion clinics and their patients in 1994, when it passed legislation that makes it a federal crime to attack or blockade abortion clinics, their operators or their patrons. By its actions in 1994, Congress suggested that the much older Hobbs act did not address anti-abortion protests, Justice Breyer wrote.

:::snip:::

In the 1980's, the National Organization for Women and two abortion clinics sued Operation Rescue and the Pro-Life Action League under the Hobbs Act. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that abortion clinics could use that statute, but that they had to prove in court that the actions of protesters were part of a "pattern of racketeering activity."

But later, after the anti-abortion groups won in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court reversed its own ruling, holding in 2003 that the protesters' behavior around clinics did not amount to extortion, or trying to obtain another's property through real or threatened "force, violence or fear."

Even though the article doesn't mention the act by name I assume that the reference to "congress specifically addressing the needs of abortion clinics and their patients in 1994, when it passed legislation that makes it a federal crime to attack or blockade abortion clinics, their operators or their patrons" is referencing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton in May 1994.

About FACE

The federal FACE law is designed to protect both those providing and those receiving reproductive health care services. It forbids the use of "force, threat of force or physical obstruction" to prevent someone from providing or receiving reproductive health services. The law also provides for both criminal and civil penalties for those who break the law. More (PDF file, 82K)

Here's a photo an Our Word member posted in a comment at the site of an anti-choice leader expressing what is believed to be his opinion of the FACE act. If you have the time, be sure and scroll up and read the piece the comment is in reference to, Enter the Rainmaker. It's by Moiv and it's brilliant.

"It's a great day for pro-lifers," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue.

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said the decision was disappointing because the injunction had decreased violence outside clinics nationally.

She said the clinic access act is problematic because it requires abortion providers to seek injunctions "city by city" and turns back the clock to the late 1980s when NOW played cat and mouse with Operation Rescue in trying to anticipate the cities and clinics that abortion protesters planned to target next.

Newman said his group and others have set their sights on the clinic access law, filing legal challenges they hope will lead courts to overturn it.

____________

Here's an article on how anti-choice de-funding of family planning services in some states is increasing unintended pregnancies.

Unintended Pregnancy Linked to State Funding Cuts

At a time when policy-makers have made reducing unintended pregnancies a national priority, 33 states have made it more difficult or more expensive for poor women and teenagers to obtain contraceptives and related medical services, according to an analysis released yesterday by the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.

From 1994 to 2001, many states cut funds for family planning, enacted laws restricting access to birth control and placed tight controls on sex education, said the institute, a privately funded research group that focuses on sexual health and family issues.

The statewide trends help explain why more than half of the 6 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended and offer clues for tackling problems associated with teenage pregnancy and abortion, said researchers who specialize in the field.

:::snip:::

Despite some gains, the United States still lags far behind most industrialized nations in reducing abortion and teenage pregnancy. In 2002, 21 in 1,000 American women age 15 to 44 had an abortion. Although that is the lowest abortion rate since 1974, the decline has stalled, prompting fears that individuals and policy-makers have lost focus on the underlying problem of unintended pregnancies, said Guttmacher President Sharon L. Camp.

"Unintended pregnancy in the United States is twice as high as in most of Western Europe," she said in an interview. "As a direct result, abortion rates are twice or three times as high as European countries. There is no reason why abortion rates need to be as high as they are."

The problem is particularly acute for the nation's estimated 17 million adolescent girls and low-income women, because a lack of education and money are often barriers to practicing abstinence or effective birth control.

I suppose it goes without saying that it would logically follow that increasing unintended pregnancies also increases abortions.

The report is available via the hyperlink, it's entitled Contraception Counts: Ranking State Efforts :::warning PDF link:::

____________

And here's news on the FDA and Plan B

FDA must testify about Plan B lag

Senior Food and Drug Administration officials must testify about the federal agency's failure to decide whether a controversial emergency contraceptive pill may be sold without a prescription, a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled late Friday.

The decision by Magistrate Viktor Pohorelsky came in response to FDA legal efforts to keep secret the agency's discussions and correspondence about the pill, called Plan B.

:::snip:::

Questioning the FDA's intentions, Pohorelsky said in his order: "Thus, inquiry about contacts between those outside the agency and those within the agency is appropriate to expose whether improper influences led to the FDA's actions."

:::snip:::

Pohorelsky and U.S. District Judge Edward Korman, who has refused to dismiss the lawsuit, have said in separate rulings the FDA appears to be conducting a "filibuster" to avoid making a decision that could be subject to judicial review.

____________

For those of you with reading time on your hands here is a collection of editorials looking at the "Partial Birth" abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart, that will be heard by the Supreme court. The collection is from the Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy reports.

Editorials Look at U.S. Supreme Court's Decision To Hear Arguments in Federal Abortion Ban Challenge

Several newspapers recently published editorials on the U.S. Supreme Court's announcement that it will hear arguments in the Department of Justice's appeal to reinstate a federal law banning so-called "partial-birth" abortion. Summaries appear below.

In spite of all the frenzy this week over the South Dakota abortion ban this case, Gonzales v. Carhart is a very important case. There are a lot of mistaken impressions about the law and also about what is at stake.

The Federal Abortion Ban

• This law would ban safe and effective abortions as early as 12-15 weeks.
• The law makes no exception for the health of the woman or for cases of severe fetal anomalies.
• The federal abortion ban (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003) does not use medical definitions or describe one specific procedure. The act describes "partial-birth abortion" so broadly that it covers steps doctors routinely take in performing abortions in the second trimester.
• The law is part of a larger agenda to outlaw all abortions. Decisions involving pregnancy and medical care should be left to women and their doctors, not politicians.

In a press release concerning the case made by the Center for Reproductive Rights President, Nancy Northup makes the following statements.

"For more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has consistently made clear that abortion laws may not endanger women's health," said Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Supreme Court precedent, not to mention common sense and medical ethics, dictates that a patient’s health is a doctor’s paramount concern."

:::snip:::

"This case provides a perfect opportunity to make clear to Congress and the Bush Administration that they can’t ride roughshod over the law of the land, especially at the expense of individuals’ health and safety," said Priscilla Smith, Director of the Domestic Legal Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights and lead counsel in Gonzales v. Carhart.

____________

His holiness the pope reveals his opinion on the sanctity of frozen microscopic tissue.

Pope takes strong stance on embryos

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that embryos developed for in vitro fertilization deserve the same right to life as fetuses, children and adults -- and that that right extends to embryos even before they are transferred into a woman's womb.

The Vatican has long held that human life begins at conception, but Benedict's comments were significant because he specified that even an embryo in its earliest stages -- when it is just a few cells -- is just as much a human life as an older being.

The pope made the comments during an audience with members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who opened a Vatican-sponsored conference Monday on the ethics surrounding the handling of embryos before they are implanted during in vitro procedures.

You know that's one thing we haven't seen much of yet in this country, "Pro-life" protesters doing the vigils across the streets and on the sidewalks near in-vitro fertilization labs. I wonder why not?

____________

Here are dueling opinion pieces from the State of Georgia.

OUR OPINIONS: Take bills personally

This is not the year of the woman at the General Assembly; it's the year of the womb.

A batch of anti-abortion measures is racing through the General Assembly, all of which reduce a pregnant woman to a vessel. One bill accords an embryo the same legal standing as the pregnant woman herself. Another allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives. Among the most intrusive is SB 429, which forces a pregnant woman to have a sonogram or ultrasound for no medical reason whatsoever.

These legislative proposals don't help pregnant women; that's not their intent. Like last year's law forcing women to wait 24 hours to undergo an abortion, these bills are designed to make getting the procedure cumbersome and difficult.

EQUAL TIME: Unborn children gain favor

Since 1973, when abortions were legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court, 46 million babies have been aborted. But the tide is turning as pro-life laws are being enacted across this nation to save the lives of unborn children. We're pleased that our state legislators are considering passage of key pro-life bills.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (HB 243) recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. This bill is similar to the Laci and Conner Peterson law that President Bush signed into federal law.

The Full Disclosure Ultrasound Act (HB 888) would require that an ultrasound be performed on a woman seeking abortion, with her being offered the opportunity to view it. If the abortion facility does not have access to an ultrasound machine, the patient could be referred to another facility.

An ultrasound is the most accurate measure of the gestational age of an unborn baby. Women deserve all the information to make a life-changing decision.

We applaud the South Dakota lawmakers who approved a bill to ban all abortions except to save the life of the mother.

I personally feel that the statement "If the abortion facility does not have access to an ultrasound machine," is rather humorous. Are there any? I can't imagine an abortion provider not utilizing one for medical purposes. Of course it goes without saying that I'm not familiar with Georgia law but I'll bet the real meat of that bill is "with her being offered the opportunity to view it". And I bet the viewing is intended to be not so much medically purposed as coercively purposed. I think it's all about intimidation. Probably has an instructive booklet to go along with the offer too. Some of the model legislation on this subject does. I wonder if this bill has that?

____________

FDA inaction on approval for over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraception pill, Plan B, is causing the matter to be taken up in many states. The Washington Post ran a story about this on Monday.

Plan B Battles Embroil States
Proposals Mirror Red-Blue Divide

Filling a void left by the Food and Drug Administration's inability to decide whether to make the "morning-after" pill available without a prescription, nearly every state is or soon will be wrestling with legislation that would expand or restrict access to the drug.

More than 60 bills have been filed in state legislatures already this year, and that follows an already busy 2005 session on emergency contraception. The resulting tug of war is creating an availability map for the pill that looks increasingly similar to the map of "red states" and "blue states" in the past two presidential elections -- with increased access in the blue states and greater restrictions in the red ones.

:::snip:::

"Basically, every state now has an effort going to either make Plan B more easily available or to slow it down or make sure that pharmacists don't have to dispense if they oppose it," said Edward R. Martin, a lawyer and lobbyist with Americans United for Life, who has helped put together some of the proposed "conscience" clauses.

Americans for Life drafts model legislation on anti-choice issues, offensive legislation that's being thrown against the walls in state legislatures all across the country. Their "science" on many of the issues that they address with legislation appears very questionable. Here's a link to their Cutting-Edge Bioethical Issues. You'll note that their first issue is the fictional-abortion breast cancer link. These people are in the legislatures of our states selling this questionable science as scientific fact and they're being believed by many of the grandstanding politicians. Politicians who know they can fire up their ignorant base using scare tactics. This information is being acted upon and laws are being passed, laws that are not based on sound science, but on religious beliefs and paternalistic desires to control the reproductive freedoms of women. Here's the example legislation with a description:

Informed Consent / Abortion-Breast Cancer Warning

This model bill was drafted in response to requests from many women who have been physically and psychologically harmed by abortion and are interested in helping other women understand all the medical risks, alternatives to, and consequences of abortion. The model bill provides for a booklet with color photographs of the developing unborn child, and a warning of all the medical risks of abortion, including the link between abortion and breast cancer. A guide to agencies that provide abortion alternatives is also required, along with a 24-hour reflection period.

By way of example the National Cancer Institute has this to say on the fictitious abortion-breast cancer link

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

Now, that's as simple as it gets. This is the ultimate medical opinion, its the National Cancer Institute's opinion as of today and it's completely UNVARNISHED by religious bigotry or paternalism. Abortion does NOT increase the risk of breast cancer.

And yet the Americans for Life, and other organizations of their ilk, are in your state at this minute promoting a different viewpoint and they're busy working at passing laws based on unfounded facts.

Of course, they mask their religious efforts by clothing them in scientific garb. If you examine the link to the abortion-breast cancer link at the Americans for Life website you'll see the name of Dr. Joel Brind as their authority. Well here's a shoot-down of Dr. Brind's research by Joyce Arthur.

Abortion and Breast Cancer — A Forged Link

Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at New York City’s Baruch College, is a tireless proponent of the ABC link. He has devoted an entire website to the issue, zealously named www.abortioncancer.com. The website says Brind “has written and lectured extensively� on this topic since 1992, but his lecturing is confined to the anti-abortion speaker circuit, and he has published only one peer-reviewed research paper[4] on the supposed connection between induced abortion and breast cancer. This 1996 paper, a "meta-analysis" study, has been heavily criticized. Brind pooled the data from 23 studies on the ABC link and came up with a 30% increase in risk. However, most of the studies he included were those flawed by reporting bias, so it was a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out". Brind's work has been supplanted by a December 2001 review of 28 studies of the ABC link by a British researcher, who concluded there was "insufficient data to justify warning women of future breast-cancer risk when counseling them about abortion."[5]

Americans for Life doesn't have any model legislation for Plan B that I'm aware of. But with the increased activity at the state level on Plan B you can bet there are groups with the same motivations crafting bills to restrict your access to Plan B even as you read this. They are working on something closely related though:

Health Care Rights of Conscience Model Legislation
Legal Protection for Health Professionals and Institutions That Respect Human Life

Which to my way of thinking is sort of a 21st century version of that old southern jim crow routine, "we reserve the right to refuse service". It's not aimed at blacks this time around though. It's aimed at women. Same mentality, hardly changed at all.

I urge you to contact your representatives and make your positions known to them. If you don't and you live in a Red State, they're going to rob you blind.

____________

The convicted murderer of Dr. Barnett Slepian, James Kopp, has overruled his lawyer regarding his defense in another upcoming trial.

Killer's confession debated before trial

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- In a letter from prison, anti-abortion extremist James Kopp stands by published statements detailing his shooting of an abortion provider, and says he wants to halt efforts to keep them out of his next trial.

Kopp, who is imprisoned on a murder conviction, faces charges in U.S. District Court for allegedly violating a law protecting access to abortion.

:::snip:::

It was the second time this month Kopp acted against his attorney's efforts to quash the statements, in which Kopp described shooting Dr. Barnett Slepian from behind a tree outside the doctor's Amherst home in 1998.

:::snip:::

"He wants the statements to stand as the `truths about (his) faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,"' Mehltretter wrote, citing Kopp's letter.

:::snip:::

Kopp first confessed the shooting to reporters in November 2002, saying he had meant only to wound Slepian to prevent him from performing abortions. He outlined the shooting again at length at his sentencing on a second-degree murder charge with a statement that began: "On October 23, Judge, in 1998 late at night I shot Dr. Slepian. Let me explain a little bit about why and how."

Humann (Kopp's public defender) has argued in court papers that Kopp's statements "rendered his federal trial indefensible" and that they should be thrown out because at the time Kopp made them he was represented by an attorney with a conflict of interest.

____________

And in this news from Ohio an appeals court upholds a finding against a law restricting the use of RU-486.

Surgery risk key in limiting abortion pill, court rules

Ohio cannot restrict the use of an abortion-inducing pill unless lawmakers allow exceptions for women facing a greater health risk with surgical abortion, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed with Planned Parenthood's contention that limiting the use of the drug, RU-486, could jeopardize the health of women in some cases.

"There are some circumstances in which the surgical option is considerably more risky for some women," wrote Judge David McKeague, who was joined in the decision by judges Karen Nelson Moore and John Rogers.
ADVERTISEMENT

The decision upheld a lower court's order barring enforcement of an Ohio law that made it illegal for doctors to prescribe the drug after the seventh week of pregnancy.

____________

I'd like to close this week in review with a few excerpts from an article by Joyce Arthur that I should have had in last week's Week in Review. I was too busy to do one though! Here's the Brilliant Ms. Arthur.

Let no fetus defeat us!
(trust women)

In today's abortion debate, the fetus looms large – larger than life one might say, given the giant posters of phony aborted fetuses the anti-abortion movement likes to parade around with.

There's been increasing demands lately for the American pro-choice movement to "face the fetus," to admit things like abortion kills a human being – or if not an actual human being, then at least something valuable and worthy of sober contemplation. We're supposed to worry that abortion rights may have gone too far, concede that abortion is bad, agree there are too many abortions, and work to reduce them. Towards that end, the anti-choice contingent wants to restrict both abortion and contraception by law to force women to have babies, while some pro-choice people would just prefer to put all women on birth control. Yes, we apparently have only two moral choices when it comes to this most urgent priority of saving babies – produce them fully-fledged, or make sure they never reach the single-cell stage to begin with. It's everyone's job now. Oh, except for women of childbearing age, who are just the passive receptacles for our baby and non-baby programs alike.

Being a woman myself, but not a passive receptacle, I've got a better idea. Let's just butt out of the whole thing. And trust pregnant women to decide what to do. Women have been having sex, getting pregnant, delivering babies, and yes, having abortions since the origin of the species. So I think we know what we're doing. We know what our needs and wants are, we understand our situations like no-one else can, and we care about our families and our futures. We can figure out by ourselves what's best for any particular pregnancy. When we want outside advice, we'll ask for it. Frankly, any unwanted interference with our decision insults our intelligence, our moral wisdom, and our very humanity.

Oh, but what about the fetus? Shouldn't everyone care about what happens to it? Well...NO, actually. And there are two good reasons for that:

A. Fetuses are not that important.

B. Fetuses are none of our business.

If that shocks and offends you, it's probably because you subscribe to one or more irrational and insupportable beliefs, which I'll get to in a moment.

Well what are you waiting for? Go over and finish it!