As part of its 40th anniversary celebration, Our Bodies Ourselves is honoring its global partners who have adapted the “Our Bodies, Ourselves” book for their own communities. Twenty-four groups have been inducted into the Women’s Health Heroes Hall of Fame, joining dozens of advocates working to advance the health and human rights of women and girls. In this blog series, we’ll introduce you to some of the global partners attending OBOS’s anniversary symposium.

by Sophia Moradian

In the spring of 2009 of my freshman year at Boston College, I received an advanced study grant to travel to Armenia. As an 18-year-old of Armenian descent who had never been to the country, I had few expectations of the one month I would spend investigating small business entrepreneurship in rural Armenia.

I soon saw the links between economics, socio-cultural norms, and the status of rural women and girls, many of whom are confined to their homes. Living in disproportionate and desperate poverty, they are unable to influence or control household finances and decisions. Many of the women’s husbands work outside the country, and while this leaves their partners back home more vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections, women are unable to protect themselves or access basic health and reproductive services. I learned that more than half of rural Armenian women have never visited a gynecologist.

OBOS’s partner in Armenia, the “For Family and Health” Pan Armenian Association (PAFHA), is working to address these inequities via education, advocacy, training and service programs throughout the country. The Association has informal branches in all 10 regions of Armenia and is headquartered in the city of Yerevan.

The main areas of focus include abortion, health care access, adolescents, advocacy and HIV/AIDS.  Its work includes health clinics, one of which provides free reproductive care twice a week to women and girls, subsidized by sales of the 2010 Armenian adaptation of “Our Bodies, Ourselves.” (Tour the clinic here.)

Clinic staff undergo training at the Vernissage Reproductive Health Clinic at the St. Mary’s Family Health Centre in Yerevan, Armenia. Click the image to tour the clinic. Proceeds from the sales of the Armenian edition of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" are used to provide free reproductive health care to girls and women.

I have worked on gender and economic rights in Armenia and in the greater Middle East region and witnessed first-hand the impact of poverty on access and health in these communities. For the women and girls who cannot afford health care, PAFHA’s clinics are essential lifelines.

As the president of the Boston College Armenian club, I am an active voice in the Armenian community on campus and in the greater Boston area, organizing events on the health of rural Armenian women and the Armenian Genocide, including an annual Remembrance Day gathering on campus. These are my actions — a way for me to raise awareness about human rights and engage people on issues and injustices that affect Armenian women and girls.

PAFHA’s work in Armenia, under the leadership of Meri Khachikyan, should inspire all of us who believe women’s rights are human rights. The group’s “Women’s Manifesto,” for example, is a courageous call-to-action that will soon be submitted to the Armenian government with the endorsement of approximately 500 community leaders.

Paul Farmer, founder of Partners in Health, has called for taking up the health rights of those who cannot provide basic health services for themselves. Meri and her team are answering his call, and it is my hope that we can all do the same.

I am now applying for a Fulbright scholarship that will take me back to the Shirak province of northwest Armenia. This time I hope to build on my previous experience and further the economic rights – and ultimately the sexual and reproductive rights – of women and girls. As a young activist preparing for this assignment, and as a member of the Armenian Diaspora, I am eager to meet and listen to Meri’s experiences this October at the OBOS symposium and I hope you will join me, in person or by webcast.

Sophia Moradian is a senior at Boston College majoring in international studies with a minor in Islamic civilizations and societies. After graduation, Sophia plans to work internationally in the field of economic development and human rights.

Guest post by Sarah Morison

It was not until I started working at the Global Justice Center that I learned that due to U.S. policy (not law, policy), it is almost impossible for a victim of war rape who becomes impregnated to have the option of abortion. That is because all humanitarian aid that the United States gives in areas of armed conflict to either governments or humanitarian organizations contains a blanket prohibition on any monies being used to provide abortions — or even information about abortion.

Yet under the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States has been a party for over 60 years, “wounded and sick” civilian victims of armed conflict are absolutely guaranteed the right to “comprehensive and non-discriminatory” medical care. The Global Justice Center is therefore contending that the United States is in violation of the Geneva Conventions by maintaining its current abortion restrictions on humanitarian funds in areas of armed conflict.

Our current initiative is the Geneva Project, whereby we are harnessing the power of the Geneva Conventions to tackle the horrible problem of sexual violence deliberately used as a weapon and strategy during armed conflict in many parts of the world. (For more background information, see the GJC’s legal brief, “The Right to an Abortion for Girls and Women Raped in Armed Conflict” [pdf].)

No doubt you have read about the epidemic of war rape going on in places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Sudan, and that occurred during the genocides in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and the intransigent conflicts in Columbia. During the recent uprising in Libya, the military was given Viagra to help them carry out rapes against the women living in areas of armed conflict. Right now, ethnic women are being raped by the military in Burma.

The military strategy of raping women is intended as a way of destroying families, communities and cultures. In Rwanda, girls and women were deliberately infected with HIV. In Yugoslavia, girls and women were gang-raped (typical form of war rape), impregnated, and then deliberately detained so as to force them to give birth to a child of a different ethnic group.

International courts have classified war rape as a war crime, and also as a form of torture. For those girls and women who become impregnated, the torture often continues, both psychologically and physically. Denial of abortions in this context frequently leads to desperate measures such as suicide or dangerous self-induced abortions.

We have learned that women being treated for war rape at internationally funded clinics often beg doctors for abortions but are turned away because these clinics can’t risk losing funding. By the time they reach these clinics, the time is often well past for using emergency contraception, which must be taken within a short period of time after the rape. Sometimes several donor countries give aid to an organization providing services to rape victims, but if U.S. funds are pooled with other countries’ funds, the effect is that all such funds are restricted.

The 62nd anniversary of the Geneva Conventions is Friday, Aug. 12. An international “August 12th Campaign” is underway, and we are asking organizations and individuals from around the world to commit to writing President Obama on Aug. 12 to urge him to lift these restrictions through an executive order (the current restrictions were put in place in the waning hours of the Bush administration). Many organizations — both prominent and small — throughout the world have committed to the campaign, which is heartening.

There is also a way for individuals to endorse our campaign, by signing an online petition to the President. I am asking you to read this petition and, if you agree this policy should be changed, add your name to the list. Consider sending the link to your friends and posting your endorsement on Facebook and Twitter.

Thank you all for reading this and for considering giving your support to this critical campaign.

Sarah Morison is an attorney at the Global Justice Center in New York City. The GJC advocates for the implementation of and compliance with international human rights laws and humanitarian laws (laws relating to war), especially those relating to women.

A recent Guttmacher piece reported that from 2000 to 2008, abortion rates in the United States declined – except among poor women, who “accounted for 42% of all abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 18% between 2000 and 2008, from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44.”

A commentary in the May issue of the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved focuses on the barriers faced by poor and minority women in obtaining abortions and other reproductive health care. The authors call not just for better access to services to prevent unintended pregnancy, but for increased access to abortion itself.

In Access to Abortion Services: A Neglected Health Disparity, authors Christine Dehlendorf and Tracy Weitz identify the Hyde amendment, provisions of and legislative reactions to the Affordable Care Act, lack of insurance coverage, waiting periods, the lack of providers in 87% of U.S. counties, TRAP laws, limits on who can perform the procedure, and medical liability coverage as specific barriers that effectively reduce poor women’s access to abortion.

They make the following compelling and provocative argument for increased access to abortion services as a treatment for the condition of unintended pregnancy:

Poor and minority women experience both greater need for and reduced access to abortion services than their White and more affluent counterparts, and have negative health and social consequences as a result. With other chronic conditions with similar disparities—such as diabetes and HIV—there is the recognition that it is necessary not only to work to prevent the onset of the disease but also to ensure access to and eliminate disparities in health care services for whom prevention is not successful. No one would argue, for example, that individuals diagnosed with diabetes should be denied access to diabetes-related care because they did not adhere to diabetes prevention strategies such as exercise and improved nutrition. In contrast, governmental health agencies invested in women’s reproductive health and health disparities have addressed only prevention of unintended pregnancy, thereby ignoring the need for access to abortion care as one option for treatment of this condition.

They then call for actions to address disparities in access and focus attention on abortion itself, not just prevention of unwanted pregnancies:

We propose that a new public policy approach would address the issue of undesired fertility as a condition requiring not only prevention but also treatment. This approach allows consideration of access to all reproductive health services, including abortion, as a health disparities issue. Concrete steps which governmental health agencies could institute with this altered perspective on abortion disparities include removing the exclusion of health care coverage for abortion in both the private and the public sectors. Further, health care regulations which specifically target abortion facilities should be eliminated, and trained providers should be allowed to provide these services without barriers associated with licensure or medical liability insurance.

I would agree that discussions of reproductive care can sometimes have a more limited focus on prevention, which can be seen as more palatable to a broader set of people. Dehlendorf and Weitz remind us that access to abortion itself is just as important. While I think there are plenty of pro-choice folks who agree with the authors, it’s not very often that I see this position laid out so explicitly, and I appreciated the authors’ directness. While the article is not freely available, I wanted to point to it as a resource for advocates and suggest getting a copy through a library or otherwise.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) recently signed a bill into law that would prevent any clinics that also provide abortions from receiving Medicaid funds for non-abortion services such as family planning.

In response, the federal Department of Health and Human Services sent state officials a letter stating that “Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers from providing services that are funded under the program because of a provider’s scope of practice.” In other words, states can’t refuse to let a clinic take Medicaid money for birth control and cancer screenings just because they also provide abortions – the law is intended to give patients a free choice of providers.

A U.S. district judge will hear arguments today on possibly halting enforcement of the law.

There is a nice summary of the arguments in the Women’s Health Policy Report, along with a link to a Slate piece that provides additional background and criticism of this and related efforts. The case may have implications in other states where similar “defund Planned Parenthood” measures are being debated.

There are plenty of stereotypes about women who have abortions, and things most people don’t realize – such as that the majority of women having abortions are already mothers. The true picture is apparent in the CDC abortion surveillance data, but let’s face it – these detailed reports aren’t exactly catchy or easy reading.

The Guttmacher Institute has put out a much simpler version of the facts about women who have abortion in the United States, with clear information about who has abortions, and a call for better access to prevention, comprehensive sex education, and abortion coverage through insurance and for low-income women.

[hat tip to ema]

We’re all pretty used to hearing about anti-choice, anti-reproductive justice Republican proposals that do little to promote the health of all women, but how is our current Democratic President doing on these issues? That is the theme explored by the current issue of Conscience, the magazine of Catholics for Choice, which explores the question of President Obama’s record of pro-choice action.

In the first essay, Jodi Jacobsen of RH Reality Check asks, “Is Obama Prochoice?” and focuses on the topic by looking at the President’s actions related to the stimulus package, healthcare reform debates, the murder of Dr. Tiller, and other events. Her conclusion? “Is Obama Prochoice? Not by my definition.”

Other authors discuss the need for a true “champion” of reproductive rights, express disappointment in Obama’s approach to HIV/AIDS, decry the continuance of financial support of abstinence-only programs, and explore USAID approaches, faith-based initiatives, and other topics.

The issue also includes a review of the book “Willing and Unable: Doctors’ Constraints in Abortion Care,” which we wrote about last June, as well as a few other relevant books that may be of interest to readers.

So what’s your take? Has Obama lived up to your pro-choice expectations? Do we have any real leverage on these issues in the 2012 elections? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Project Prevention, a program formerly known as C.R.A.C.K. that seeks to bribe/coerce women with drug addictions into be sterilized or accepting long-term birth control (that may not be medically appropriate) through financial incentives, started out in the United States by advertising quick cash for addicted women who surrendered their reproductive options and control. The program often targeted communities of color.

Needless to say, the program is vile and racist — founder Barbara Harris has been widely quoted comparing women to dogs and their children to unwanted animals, saying, “We don’t allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children.”

The program has been widely criticized in the United States. Lynn Paltrow and National Advocates for Pregnant Women have been outspoken in their concerns, noting:

NAPW’s examination of the program makes clear that, far from providing a useful response to problems associated with drug use and pregnancy, C.R.A.C.K. instead acts as a dangerous vector for medical misinformation and political propaganda that has significant implications for the rights of all Americans. Under the guise of openness, voluntary choice, and personal empowerment, C.R.A.C.K. not only promotes a vicious image of all drug users, it has won significant support for a program and an ideology that is at the core of civil rights violations and eugenic population control efforts.

The program had recently expanded to the United Kingdom, where it also has been criticized by organizations and bloggers.

Now Harris has apparently set her sights on South Africa, where she had plans to target women living with HIV. Project Prevention has apparently already set up in Kenya.

The Open Society Blog has some coverage of these developments, noting that “Project Prevention seems to have no knowledge of antiretroviral medications (ARVs) or PMTCT [preventing mother-to-child transmission], since they claim that getting HIV-positive women on long term birth control is ‘the only way’ to ensure there are fewer babies born with HIV.”

The head of the National Health Department in South Africa has reportedly said that the group will not be allowed to operate in the country, stating:

It’s a no, no, no! We have a Constitution in this country that causes us to respect human rights — including the right to choice. So there is no way that we are going to accept or to allow anyone coming from anywhere in the world to come in and force sterilization on any women in this country — because that will be against the Constitution. So it’s not acceptable and it’s a big ‘no’.

If only we so strongly prohibited these actions in this country.

This week, the New York Times ran a piece focused on the babies of women addicted to prescription painkillers. The focus of the narrative – almost exclusively on the babies, with a lack of real interrogation of or accountability for how the system currently fails and demonizes addicted pregnant women – should be familiar to anyone who witnessed media coverage of the “crack baby” in the 1980s.*

In fact, the writer explicitly draws this parallel by stating, “Like the cocaine-exposed babies of the 1980s, those born dependent on prescription opiates — narcotics that contain opium or its derivatives — are entering a world in which little is known about the long-term effects on their development.”

The same paper ran a piece in December 2009, “The Epidemic that Wasn’t,” which notes that popular fears about the outcomes for those babies – expressed in headlines such as “Crack’s Toll Among Babies: A Joyless View” and “Studies: Future Bleak for Crack Babies” – have failed to materialize, while “‘Society’s expectations of the children and reaction to the mothers are completely guided not by the toxicity, but by the social meaning’ of the drug.”

This is not to say it’s not natural or important to be concerned about the babies of addicted mothers, but it’s important to remember the ways in which race, class, power, and stigma impact our consideration of these women and their babies. This is illustrated in a quote from one doctor interviewed for the current piece; he treats pregnant women with addictions, and apparently asked himself initially, “Gosh, what am I doing? Am I really helping these people?” (emphasis mine).

What gets little attention in the article – except for a note that some doctors and hospitals won’t deliver the babies of some women treated with buprenorphine for their addictions – is that it can be extremely difficult for pregnant women to obtain treatment for drug addiction. Many treatment centers will not accept pregnant women, yet women whose babies test positive for drugs may face criminal charges. Yet, the stories and experiences of pregnant women addicted to drugs, and their inability to obtain treatment, barely figure into the NY Times article.

Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women has an excellent commentary exploring these and related issues at RHRealityCheck, where she concludes:

Perhaps then the real ethical quandary that should be addressed is why stories like these suggest that the greatest threat to children is their mothers – rather than the lack of universal health care, the economic policies undermining our communities, and the unethical doctors who turn away pregnant women seeking medical help.

*For more on that topic, including the racist overtones and media mythmaking, see Dorothy Roberts’s “Killing the Black Body.” Also see this editorial and this scientific article.

On April 7, Northeastern Law School in Boston, MA will host what promises to be a great panel discussion on race and reproductive justice. Here are the details, from an announcement we received:

Northeastern LSRJ, LSRJ National, and Northeastern Law School present:

“Race, Rhetoric, and Reproductive Justice: How Current and Proposed Legislation Will Affect Communities of Color”

A Panel Discussion Featuring:

• Loretta Ross, National Coordinator of SisterSong
• Reverend Madison Shockley, Pilgrim United Church of Christ, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
• Tiloma Jayasinghe, Executive Director, Sakhi for South Asian Women
• Elizabeth Barajas – Roman, Director of Policy, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
• Priscilla Huang, Associate Policy Director, Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum

When: Thursday April 7th, 2011, 6:30-8:00pm, followed by RECEPTION (those wishing to attend reception MUST attend Panel). Event will begin on time.
Where: Northeastern Law School, Dockser Hall Room 240, 65 Forsyth Street Boston MA, 02115

Co Sponsored by:
Northeastern Black Law Students Association, Northeastern Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Northeastern Latin American Law Students Association, Northeastern South Asian Law Students Association, Northeastern Human Rights Caucus, Harvard LSRJ, Boston University LSRJ, Northeastern Feminist Student Organization, and the Northeastern Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department.

Reception after! Open to the public! Please FORWARD and distribute widely!

Yesterday, NPR’s Morning Edition ran a story, States’ Abortion Legislation Questioned By Critics. It reviews some of the anti-choice proposals in states like South Dakota, where women choosing abortion would be required to visit a “crisis pregnancy center” prior to having the procedure.

They also report: “At least 20 states have passed laws that require doctors either to offer women ultrasounds or to perform one. Seven others are now considering bills that would mandate the ultrasound.”

I noticed a couple of additional proposals beyond those mentioned in the NPR piece, such as Idaho’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks, a move that hardly seems necessary. The recent 2007 CDC abortion surveillance data indicates a tiny number of Idaho abortions (only between 1 and 4 of them) took place after 20 weeks. Other bills in various states, however, may have a broader impact on women’s ability to access abortion procedures.

Meanwhile, I just stumbled across the 2011 model legislation from Americans United for Life. I’m not going to link to it, but it provides pre-written anti-choice legislation language ready for state legislators to insert the names of their states and file. I’m not aware of anything similar from the pro-choice, pro-reproductive justice camp, but we should have a tool like this. Anybody aware of one?

The CDC has released abortion surveillance data for 2007, and it should come as no real surprise that the overall rate (16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years) was pretty much the same as what it has been for the preceding several years, during which abortion rates have been pretty steady: 16.4 in 2000, 16.2 in 2001, 2002, and 2003, 16.0 in 2004, 15.8 in 2005, and 16.2 in 2006.

Earlier this year, conservatives at RedState attempted to portray the lack of publication of this data in November of last year as a governmental attempt to hide something. In reality, November publication of the abortion surveillance data has been the regular practice just since 1999. I take a more detailed look at when each year’s data was released from 1977 to present here.

The 2007 data, however, are nothing earth-shattering, and nothing to hide. In addition to the pretty steady rate, the report includes the following abortion facts:

• Most abortions are performed early: 62.3% of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation, 91.5% were performed at ≤13 weeks, 7.2% were performed at 14-20 weeks, and 1.3% were performed at ≥21 weeks. As we know, very late term abortions are not very common.
• Of the abortions performed at ≤8 weeks and so eligible for non-surgical medication abortion, 20.3% used the medication method.
• Almost 60% of women having abortions are already mothers, with 26.3% with one previous live birth and and 32.3% having had two or more previous live births.
• 16.3% of women getting abortions are married.

Walk for Choice events will be held in cities all across the United States this Saturday to show support for abortion rights in response to recent anti-choice legislation — especially HR 3, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

The walks are expected to take place from 12-3 p.m. on Saturday, Feb. 26, and are currently planned for more than 50 U.S. cities, plus Melbourne, Toronto and still-to-be-determined cities in Pakistan and the United Kingdom. More information is available at walkforchoice.tumblr.com. There is also a Twitter profile and hashtag (#walk4choice) for the event.

Chicago area activist Raven Geary said in a statement that HR3 was the catalyst for Walk for Choice.

“While most Americans are demanding jobs, the GOP seems to have made overturning Roe v. Wade its top priority. The recent events in Congress surrounding H.R. 3  struck a nerve with activists here in Illinois,” Geary said. “We are now harnessing the power of social networking to organize demonstrations across the globe.”

Officially, the event is not a “march” — which would require parade permits and such. Organizers have encouraged planners to select routes that people can walk around and drop in and out of at any time, rather than a walk with a set start and end point.

Routes are not being released until noon on Friday, so it is not yet possible to tell whether organizers in a given city have selected accessible routes. Organizers were instructed to select routes that included safe places for individuals to sit or stand, but accessibility for individuals using scooters/wheelchairs/other aids is not detailed. Many of the participating cities have set up Facebook pages and/or Twitter profiles, so it might be possible to contact local  organizers directly if you have questions about your city.

If you’re interested in organizing a Walk for Choice protest in your area, email walkforchoice AT gmail.com.

Jon Stewart: The Republicans have come up with a brilliant idea. What if instead of cutting services for “people,” they cut services for “women”?

For more on the Republicans’ defunding efforts …

Attention to recent attacks on reproductive rights primarily has focused on the national level, as Congressional Republicans have pushed bills and amendments to defund Title X family planning programs and eliminate federal support for Planned Parenthood, limit the ability to obtain health insurance covering abortion, and possibly provide protection for hospitals refusing to provide abortions, even in life-threatening situations.

We hope and expect, of course, that these measures will fail to make it through the Senate, or that they will be vetoed by President Obama should the Senate fail to put on the brakes. But it may be more difficult to hold back anti-abortion legislation at the state level, where concentrated efforts to block women’s access to abortion are underway.

Let’s look at recent bills in South Dakota, where women are already limited to just one provider in the entire state.

South Dakota’s HB 1217 would force women to visit crisis pregnancy centers (called “pregnancy help centers” in the bill) in order to effectively get their permission to obtain an abortion. Those centers

“shall inform her about what education, counseling, and other assistance is available to help the pregnant mother keep and care for her child, and have a private interview to discuss her circumstances that may subject her decision to coercion.”

Crisis pregnancy centers are deceptive; though they welcome women with the promise of pregnancy tests and service referrals, they are set up to counsel women against having abortions and are known for lying to women about the consequences of abortion.

To be clear — South Dakota would like to force a woman to discuss her abortion with a non-medical, anti-abortion organization created to talk women out of choosing abortion. Apparently, subjecting women to that requirement doesn’t fall under the concern of “coercion” the bill expresses.

This measure also adds additional time and costs (travel, lodging, time off work, etc.) as further barriers to exercising one’s rights. There are no provisions in the bill requiring that CPCs see women in a timely manner — meaning some could delay until women are no loner eligible for abortion.

The lack of medical qualifications and truthfulness employed by CPCs is not the only problem in the proposed South Dakota law; the refusal to accept women’s own choices and rights to determine what happens to their bodies is a crucial concern. Unfortunately, we’re seeing this issue come up more often. As we combat the injustice of this proposed requirement, we must extend that outrage to other controversial and problematic restrictions, such as counseling required for trans women (and men) before sex reassignment surgery, and courts sentencing women to use hormonal birth control or restricting them from having more children.

Returning to South Dakota, a second bill, HB 1171, would have had the effect of making it legal to murder abortion providers. The bill reads, in part:

Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child …

The bill has been tabled, for now; Rep. Phil Jensen, the legislator who sought to expand the state’s definition of “justifiable homicide,” has insisted that it wasn’t mean to be read that way.

“There’s no way in the world that I or any other representatives wish to see abortion doctors murdered,” Jensen said.

While arguing that the law wouldn’t apply to abortion providers, Jensen made this disturbing comment:

Asked whether he was conceding that the law could conceivably encourage such behavior [the murder of abortion providers], Jensen pushed back: “You could cross the street and get hit by a car. Could happen, couldn’t it?”

Perhaps I’m too cynical, but between this and the “forcible rape” language proposed, I don’t believe that Republican’s claims of, “Oh, we didn’t mean it that way,” are exactly sincere. Republicans know exactly what their proposals really mean — and how objectionable they are — and are simply pushing the anti-abortion rights agenda as far they can, using the “We didn’t mean it” line when the pushback is too strong. Anyone else feeling as cynical as I am?

Further reading:
“South Dakota Seeks to Force Women into Crisis Pregnancy Centers” – Tiffany Campbell at RHRC
“South Dakota Bill Would Force Women into CPCs” – Thomas at Blog for Choice
“South Dakota Fails in Abortion Ban; Attempts Death by a Thousand Cuts” – Cara at The Curvature

Last week, we wrote about current federal legislative attempts to restrict women’s access to abortions. Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce committee voted 33-19 to pass one of those pieces of legislation on to the House for a full vote, HR 358 (the ironically named “Protect Life” Act). The bill would limit women’s ability to buy their own insurance coverage for abortion and could potentially mean that women seeking emergency care might be denied medically necessary abortions even if their lives are in danger.

Further reading:
‘Protect Life Act’ puts women’s lives at risk – The Hill’s Congress Blog
Statement from NARAL Pro-Choice America