Repro Health Hub

The first legislation in the nation that requires crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to disclose the limitations of their services is now the law of the land in Baltimore. From our partner and Urban Initiative grantee, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland:

“We thank Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake for championing an issue so important to women’s health. This law will ensure truth in advertising, protecting consumers. Unfortunately, CPCs in Baltimore are not always up front about their services and frequently give women misinformation. For example, centers in Baltimore told women that abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer and that condoms did not prevent STDs,” stated Blasdell.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland investigated three centers in Baltimore, all of which gave misinformation about abortion or birth control and none of which would provide a referral, even for birth control. “This law will empower women by giving them full information up front about what to expect from a limited service pregnancy center. This provision does not ask a facility to provide any services they find objectionable, but only asks them to tell the truth about the nature of their services. We applaud Mayor Dixon for signing this important bill,” continued Blasdell.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland is now working to get a similar bill passed in Montgomery County, MD.

By Maya Dusenbery

Across the country over the last week, activists and advocates for reproductive justice have come out against the anti-choice Stupak amendment in the House health care reform bill. The following editorial boards have spoken out as well.

• The Philadelphia Inquirer: EDITORIAL: Bitter Pill to Swallow
• Detroit Free Press: EDITORIAL: Stupak’s Anti-Abortion Amendment Tramples Women and the Law
• Pittsburgh Post Gazette: EDITORIAL: Not-so-choice: The House Health Reform Unduly Restricts Abortion
• Akron Beacon Journal (OH): EDITORIAL: A Step Back
• Palm Beach Post (FL): EDITORIAL: House Health Bill
• The Star-Ledger (NJ): EDITORIAL: The Abortion Roadblock to Health Care Reform
• The Baltimore Sun: EDITORIAL: The Anti-Choice
• Oregon Daily Emerald: EDITORIAL: Defending Reproductive Rights
• The Oregonian: EDITORIAL: An unacceptable cutback in access to abortion
• The Roanoke Times: EDITORIAL: Flawed health reform: A House anti-abortion measure is despicable, but Congress must keep its eye on universal coverage.
• The Star Tribune (MN): EDITORIAL: Measure Meddles in Women’s Care

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland—one of our Urban Initiative grant recipients—has been tirelessly advocating to pass a bill that that would require Baltimore’s crisis pregnancy centers to post disclaimers saying they don’t provide birth control or abortion referrals or face fines.

In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland applauded this landmark legislation:

Our research shows that CPCs often use false and misleading information to dissuade women from considering their full range of reproductive health options, including birth control and abortion. This legislation simply requires CPCs to post a sign informing potential clients that they do not refer or provide for birth control or abortion - a statement that CPCs do not deny.

On Monday, the bill passed the second reading in the Baltimore City Council by a vote of 12 to 3. It now moves on to a third and final vote. If passed, it would be the first law in the nation of its kind.

By Maya Dusenbery

On October 22-23, the third Urban Initiative Regional Summit was held in Chicago, IL. Hosted by the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health (ICAH), the Summit brought together more than 150 advocates from 14 cities and eight states across the Midwest.

Recognizing the wonderful work ICAH has done over the years working for adolescent health in the state and the great potential of the Urban Initiative for Reproductive Health to promote real policy solutions to urban reproductive health challenges, the Chicago City Council passed a resolution to review the goals and outcomes of the Summit.

We’re thrilled the City of Chicago is committed to improving reproductive health and recognizes the importance of fostering collaboration between advocates, elected leaders, and public health officials in cities across the country to create and implement a proactive, local agenda to do so.

Go here to read the full resolution on the Urban Initiative website.

By Maya Dusenbery

After more than a decade of legal battles, a federal appeals court in Illinois has ruled to uphold a previously unenforced state parental notification law. Effective August 4th, young women under 18 will be required to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before getting an abortion.

While the law does not require that teens receive consent from a parent, even notification can create unnecessary and dangerous barriers to accessing reproductive health services for young women. Parental notification laws assume that teens can safely involve their family in the decision to terminate a pregnancy—which is sadly not always the case. Also, most teens already involve their parents in their decision to terminate a pregnancy. For the small minority who do not involve parents in this decision, it is usually for good reason, like in cases of abuse or incest. And, like other abortion restrictions—such as mandatory counseling and waiting periods—parental notification restrictions tend to result in more second-trimester abortions.

Soo Ji Min, Executive Director of the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, a grantee of the National Institute’s Urban Initiative, issued a strong statement condemning the ruling:

The American Medical Associate reports that some young women will go to extreme and unhealthy lengths to keep pregnancies secret, including running away, obtaining illegal abortions, or self-inducing abortions. Over half of young women who do not involve a parent in their decision to seek an abortion cite fear of abuse or eviction. Requiring parental notification or consent can expose young women to these risks.

Parental notification laws like this one are just another restriction designed to prevent women from accessing their legal right to an abortion—and end up doing more harm than good.

By Maya Dusenbery

National Institute President Kelli Conlin has a great blog post on the Huffington Post (and on her reader diary at RH Reality Check) that discusses a new report by the Guttmacher Institute about the effects of restrictions like mandatory counseling and waiting period laws on abortion.

The report finds that these attempts to restrict access to abortion actually do little to reduce overall abortion rates, but do increase the number of second-trimester abortions and place unnecessary burdens on women facing unwanted pregnancies.

As Conlin asks, “Who knew that anti-choice activists were actually trying to increase the number of second-trimester abortions? Because that’s precisely what they’ve done with their ill-advised, ongoing and ineffective attempts to restrict women’s access to safe, legal healthcare.”

Check out the full piece here.

By Maya Dusenbery

Last month, on the eve of the Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action, we were thrilled to learn that a federal court in New York had ordered the FDA to allow 17-year-olds to obtain emergency contraception (EC) without a prescription. In its ruling, the court declared that the Bush-era FDA’s original decision to limit over-the-counter access to women 18 and older was driven by politics, not science.

Now, the FDA has moved to comply. Although the change won’t happen until the manufacturer of Plan B submits and receives approval for a labeling change, this is a step in the right direction.

The court also ordered the FDA to consider lifting all age restrictions on over-the-counter access. Hopefully, the agency will take this charge as seriously as it took the first one. If science is to reclaim its rightful place at the FDA, all women, regardless of age, should be granted timely access to EC.

By Maya Dusenbery

As we gear up for the Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action tomorrow, March 25th, we can take a little break to celebrate a great legal victory for emergency contraception (EC).

On Monday a federal court in New York ordered the F.D.A. to make EC available without a prescription to women aged 17 and older within 30 days and to consider eliminating all age restrictions on over-the-counter access.

Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the suit against the F.D.A, called the decision a tremendous victory:

Emergency contraception is proven safe and effective and today, we have succeeded in expanding access to 17-year-olds and are one step closer to making it fully available to all women, including young women for whom the barriers – and the benefits – are so great.

The judge in the case offered a harsh indictment of the Bush-era F.D.A.’s foot-dragging and political misconduct back in 2006 when it first considered making EC available over-the-counter. The New York Times reports:

Citing depositions, Judge Korman wrote that agency officials had improperly communicated with White House officials about Plan B. And, he said, F.D.A. employees sought to influence decisions by appointing people with anti-abortion views to an independent panel of experts reviewing Plan B for the agency.

The agency also departed from its normal procedures, the judge wrote, by ignoring favorable conclusions about the drug by an advisory panel as well its own scientists and officials who found that the drug could be safely used by women at least as young as 17.

Such “political considerations, delays and implausible justifications” showed that the F.D.A. had acted without good faith or reasoned decision making, Judge Korman wrote.

The ruling not only vindicates the many reproductive health advocates who cried foul at the time, but provides hope for the future. President Obama’s pick to head the F.D.A., former New York City health commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg, has been praised by advocates, including the National Institute’s President Kelli Conlin. Let’s hope that under her leadership the F.D.A. will no longer place ideology over science and grant all women, regardless of age, timely access to EC.

But, while allowing over-the-counter access to EC for young women is an important step in eliminating the barriers to its use, there is more to be done. Public awareness remains low and myths run rampant. Many women and men still do not know EC exists, let alone how to obtain it.

So, don’t forget to join us tomorrow for the BUYBC Day of Action to help spread the word. Write a letter to the editor. Blog about EC. Donate your Facebook or Twitter status to the cause. Find out what’s going on in your own community or college campus. And if you’re in New York City, come out and hit the subways with the NARAL Pro-Choice New York team.

By Maya Dusenbery

The Chicago Tribune reports that 12 states are considering implementing bills that would require doctors to offer women seeking abortions the option of obtaining an ultrasound; some states would even make ultrasounds mandatory. The content of these bills varies from state to state and ranges from giving women the option to have an ultrasound to requiring women to have the ultrasound, hear “medical descriptions” of these ultrasound images, and even listen to the fetus’s heartbeat. (A complete list of each state’s proposed measures can be found here.)

Not only do mandated ultrasounds force women to undergo an unnecessary and costly test, but they are thinly veiled attempts to scare and shame women into carrying unwanted pregnancies to term. Unfortunately, they would not be the first of their kind. An article in USA Today points out that 16 states already have laws related to abortion ultrasounds on the books.

US News & World Report contributing editor Bonnie Erbe sums up the shaming and guilt-inducing intentions behind these proposals well:

No woman seeking an abortion does so unthinkingly. Few, if any, women use abortion as birth control, although the religious right would have us believe otherwise. And women seeking abortions do not need moralistic lectures about the horrors they are about to commit. To require them to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion is the most invasive type of moralistic lecture imaginable.

By Allison Farer

This week, the North Dakota House voted to give fertilized eggs the same rights as human beings.

The fetal personhood bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person with all the rights guaranteed under the North Dakota Constitution and state laws. The measure is expected to be reviewed by the North Dakota Senate within the next couple weeks. If passed, the law would effectively ban abortion in the state and pose a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, notes that, unlike previous bills he has introduced, the measure does not automatically and explicitly ban abortion: “This is very simply defining when life begins, and giving that life some protections under our Constitution — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

On the other hand, Ruby says that posing a challenge to Roe v. Wade is exactly what the language of the bill is intended to do: “This is the exact language that’s required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that’s what this does.”

In fact, the measure is so extreme and broad that opponents warn it could reach well beyond a ban on abortion, limiting access to birth control and emergency contraception as well as affecting in vitro fertilization.

In a press release, Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota (PPMNS), said of the bill: “HB 1572 is dangerous, far reaching and allows the government, not women and families, to make critical decisions about health care.” Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, warns: “While it is a direct challenge to Roe v Wade, we expect that the bill would not only ban abortion but could reach common forms of birth control as well.”

A similar fetal personhood bill in Colorado was voted down 73-27 back in November. After this overwhelming defeat, the bill’s supporters turned their sights nationwide, forming Personhood USA to “assist local pro-life groups in different states to put personhood amendments on their states ballot by using the petition process.”

The group reports that this year fetal personhood bills have also been introduced into the legislatures of Maryland, Montana, South Carolina and Alabama. In addition, Oregon has begun a personhood amendment petition drive and Mississippi’s petition drive is expected to launch within weeks.

Granting human rights to fertilized eggs has incredibly dangerous consequences and raises some pretty tough questions. Let’s hope the North Dakota Senate rejects the amendment and that the “Personhood” movement loses steam fast.

By Maya Dusenbery