Yesterday, the House passed HR 358, the “Protect Life Act” which would interfere with women’s ability to choose and pay for their own health insurance plans with abortion coverage. As so clearly outlined in the dissent from the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

…this bill clearly goes further than the regulation of federal funds. Its effect would be to harass and intimidate women and their families in their use of their own money. It makes the job of private insurance companies so artificially complicated and unworkable as to force them from the market. It takes anti-abortion politics far beyond where they have been for the decades of the Hyde Amendment and to put them right in the middle of private homes and workplaces and squarely in private citizens’ paychecks and premiums. Its very essence is to create an undue burden on how people can exercise their own choices with their own money, and it creates a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking abortion services.

…For those members of Congress who have regularly said that they are opposed to federal funding of abortion, this bill is absolutely unnecessary.

President Obama has vowed to veto the bill, stating, “…the legislation intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today.”

The Rachel Maddow Show had a nice piece on this last night which called out the Republicans for focusing on an ongoing war against women’s rights instead of focusing on the current unemployment situation. It includes another impassioned speech from Jackie Speier, who spoke so strongly against the bill earlier in the year. Speier also appears as a guest on the show in this clip.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

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.

Last week, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law a bill requiring that any health insurance and health benefit plans that provide maternity benefits (including Medicaid and public health care assistance plans) must provide coverage for midwifery services in hospitals, other health care facilities, and at home.

As I read the legislation, it includes coverage for both certified professional midwives and certified nurse-midwives.

The Governor remarked, “Access to midwifery care and home birth should not be limited only to those who can afford those services out of pocket. This law will ensure that all expectant mothers get the coverage and care they want and deserve.”

The legislation establishes a maternal mortality review board made up of an obstetrician, maternal-fetal medicine specialist, neonatologist, CNM, CPM, and other relevant specialists, along with a member of the public. This board will review maternal deaths in Vermont for factors associated with the deaths, and will make recommendations for systemic changes and legislation to address those factors.

Although it seems to have received less media attention, the law also includes a provision to allow transgender individuals to acquire new birth certificates reflecting their gender rather than the one assigned at birth. This will require a doctor’s note submitted to a court “stating that the individual has undergone surgical, hormonal, or other treatment appropriate for that individual for the purpose of gender transition.”

This reportedly makes Vermont the only state with a law that explicitly specifies that surgery is not required in order to obtain a new birth certificate. The law also provides that the original birth certificates will not be available for public inspection in order to protect individual privacy.

In 2008, we wrote about the treatment of Juana Viilegas, who was shackled to a hospital bed during labor and after delivery, and denied access to her newborn or a breast pump in the days immediately after the birth.

Villegas was nine months pregnant and leaving a prenatal clinic with her three children when she was stopped by police. She did not have a driver’s license or auto insurance; Tennessee has recently made it much more difficult for immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Because of her immigration status, although authorities had the option to simply issue a citation, Villegas was held in jail. When she went into labor, she was taken to the hospital, kept under guard with no privacy or ability to make a phone call, and shackled to the hospital bed during labor. Even requests by nursing staff that she be unshackled for personal care were denied by the guards assigned to her.

This week, a federal judge has now ruled in favor of Villegas in a civil rights case against the Metropolitan Government of Davidson County/Nashville, Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, and police officers involved in the case.

According to the local newspaper, The Tennessean:

In his decision Wednesday, Haynes wrote that Villegas was “neither a risk of flight nor a danger to anyone,” citing medical testimony. The judge concluded that shackling Villegas during the final stages of her labor and her post-partum recovery violated her civil rights.

One reference in the judge’s decision is an ACOG statement that “The practice of shackling an incarcerated woman in labor may not only compromise her health care but is demeaning and unnecessary.” Some states have banned the practice of shackling during labor, and following the Villegas incident the Sheriff of Davidson County announced that inmates at any stage of pregnancy, labor or delivery would no longer will be restrained except in rare circumstances when there is a credible threat of escape.

For much more background information and detail from the time of the 2008 incident, see our previous post. Colorlines has also covered the updated story.

The full decision is a fascinating and complex read, but is not freely available online; if you have access to a resource like Lexis-Nexis, see Juana Villegas, Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Government of Davidson County/Nashville Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, et al., Defendants. If we have any law student or lawyer readers, I’d love to hear your take on the full decision in the comments.

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?

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the formation of the Violence Against Women Federal and Tribal Prosecution Task Force to address the staggering rates of violence against American Indian women. The Justice Department estimates that 1 in 3 American Indian women will be raped in her lifetime, and most victims who do report their assaults describe their attackers as non-Native.

The task force is composed of six assistant U.S. Attorneys and six tribal attorneys, along with other DOJ, health care and law enforcement officials. Within a year of convening, the task force is expected to:

[...] produce a trial practice manual on the federal prosecution of violence against women offenses in Indian Country. In the short term, the Task Force will explore current issues raised by professionals in the field, and recommend “best practices” in prosecution strategies involving domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.

While this issue certainly deserves attention, I can’t help but be cautious about a Justice Department-led approach. The U.S. government doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to violence and Native Americans. Part of the problem stems from issues of jurisdiction. In 2007, Amnesty International released a report (more here) that outlined the various barriers to justice that these women face, noting: “The United States government has created a complex maze of tribal, state and federal jurisdictions that often allows perpetrators to rape with impunity — and in some cases effectively creates jurisdictional vacuums that encourage assaults.”

INCITE! provides this toolkit, Police Violence Against Native Women and Native Trans & Two Spirit People, which outlines history and current problems of law enforcement and military violence against American Indian women. As the organization makes clear, decreasing and preventing violence against American Indian women is not simply a matter of increasing law enforcement:

Native women and Native Two Spirit, transgender, and gender nonconforming people are subjected to gender-specific forms of law enforcement violence, such as racial profiling, physical abuse, sexual harassment and abuse, and failure to respond or abusive responses to reports of violence.

We hope the DOJ effort will represent, as one task force member suggested, “the Obama administration’s willingness to take seriously the crimes of rape and domestic violence against Native American women,” and that genuine safety improvements for American Indian women take place.

This issue has been in the Canadian news recently as well. According to the Abbostford News, a British Columbia newspaper, “The Native Women’s Association of Canada reports that 582 indigenous women and girls have disappeared or were murdered over the last five years.” The Canadian government has recently provided $2 million to the NWAC for an initiative to “help communities understand, prevent and respond to violence against aboriginal women and girls.”

See resources linked from our previous posts for additional background reading on this topic.

The news today was celebratory, but the battle over Proposition 8 is far from over. From The New York Times:

Saying that it discriminates against gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions at least a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.

Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter in what is expected to be a long battle over the ban — Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. Indeed, while striking down Proposition 8, the decision will not immediately lead to any new same-sex marriages being performed in California. Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, immediately stayed his own decision, pending appeals by proponents of Proposition 8, who seem confident that higher courts would be less accommodating than Judge Walker.

But on Wednesday the winds seemed to be at the back of those who feel that marriage is not, as the voters of California and many other states have said, solely the province of a man and a woman.

“Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,” wrote Judge Walker. “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”

Continue reading …

Related:

* Judge Vaughn Walker’s 136-page ruling against Prop. 8. One of my favorite sections:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry.

Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

* More on the judge’s “findings of fact” at ColorLines.

* Lots of links and good info at Pam’s House Blend (start with this open discussion).

* NYT editorial: “The decision [...] is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.

“As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.”

* San Francisco Chronicle’s archive of the November 2008 California ballot measure and the state Supreme Court challenge to Prop. 8.

* Timeline of the 10-year battle over same-sex marriage in California.

* Finally, for your viewing pleasure, a look back at “Prop 8: The Musical” …

What are you reading on Prop 8?

The image of pregnant women heading to the delivery room with handcuffs, leg shackles and belly chains is almost inconceivable. Yet as we have documented here before, it has been common practice in the United States prison system for decades and is still legal (and commonly practiced) in all but 10 states.

Efforts against shackling, led by a coalition that includes the ACLU and The Rebecca Project, have gained significant ground recently. Colorado, West Virginia, Washington state and Pennsylvania passed laws in 2010 banning the practice.

And the American Medical Association (AMA) voted in June to develop model legislation states can use to pass their own anti-shackling laws. The AMA resolution condemned the practice, calling it “barbaric” and “medically hazardous.”

But recent stories by Colleen Mastony of The Chicago Tribune and Andrea Hsu of NPR offer vivid and personal reminders of the entrenched and widespread use of shackling — even in a state like Illinois that has supposedly banned the practice.

In fact, more than 20 lawsuits have been filed by women against the Cook County sheriff’s office since 2008, even though Illinois became the first state to ban the practice in 1999. The lawsuits were granted class-action status last month; attorneys told Hsu that there ultimately could be up to 150 women included in the case.

From the Tribune:

Latiana Walton went through most of her labor at Stroger Hospital with an arm and leg chained to her bed, she remembers.

As contractions surged through her body, she could not move or change position to relieve the pain. A Cook County correctional officer repeatedly refused to remove the restraints, she said, even when a doctor objected, saying that he was unable to administer an epidural.

“I actually said to the guard, ‘Where am I going?’ I’m crying. I’m in pain,” recalled Walton, 26. “‘I’m not going to get up and run out of the hospital.’”

On Aug. 27, 2008, Walton, who had been arrested after she missed a court date on a retail theft charge, became one of an estimated 50 women who give birth every year while in the custody of the Cook County Jail. [...]

In Walton’s case, she did not get an epidural and the guard agreed to remove the leg shackle only 10 minutes before she gave birth to her son, Darrion, she said. The handcuff remained on through the delivery, and the leg shackle was replaced immediately after the birth, she said.

“I couldn’t push the placenta out because I couldn’t position my legs,” Walton said. “It is not fair to treat a person like this. I did a crime … but I’m not willing to be treated like a dog. I was treated like I wasn’t human.”

Almost all of the women are low-level, non-violent offenders — their crimes include drug possession and forged checks. Yet the Cook County Sheriff’s office believes it is following the law in these cases:

A pregnant woman can be restrained, according to the policy, until a medical official confirms that she is, in fact, in labor. “When does ‘labor’ begin? Our officers aren’t trained to know, the state law doesn’t say, so we rely on medical personnel to advise us,” Steve Patterson, a spokesman for the sheriff’s office, wrote in an e-mail. “Once a medical person advises us someone is in labor, restraints of whatever sort are removed.”

But the plaintiffs’ attorney argues that restraints were, in his clients’ cases, removed too late or not at all. He contends that sheriff’s officials interpret “labor” as the moments immediately before birth, and that guards sometimes deny requests by doctors and nurses to remove the handcuffs and shackles. “When you talk to these women, they say, ‘Yeah, when I’m delivering and I’m pushing, that’s what they consider labor,’” said plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas G. Morrissey. “They remain in shackles and handcuffs until the baby is about to be delivered.”

The ignorance and stupidity on the part of the sheriff’s department is mind-boggling. Besides the harm and humiliation of the shackles, some women also had to put up with a stranger’s presence at one of the most intense and intimate moments:

Melissa Hall, 32, held on a drug possession charge, said that not only did she give birth in shackles in 2007 but, all through her labor, the guard sat next to her bed watching the NBA Finals, cheering and yelling at the television despite her repeated pleas that he leave.

“My legs were open, and my baby’s head was crowning,” she recalled. “And that’s when he walks out of the room.”

State law requires that a correctional officer be posted outside the delivery room. The policy of the sheriff’s office, according to Patterson, states that “an officer (preferably female) must provide security for the subject and be posted discreetly near the head of subject’s bed.” He contends that this policy does not violate the law because the law “does not say anywhere that an officer cannot be in the room.”

While the focus is on Illinois because of the class action lawsuit, it is equally disturbing that the policies of other states, including the 40 that do not ban shackling, are not widely known.

NPR interviewed Ginette Ferszt, associate professor and psychiatric clinical nurse specialist at the University of Rhode Island College of Nursing, who sent questionnaires to wardens in all 50 states about how they treat pregnant inmates. She received 19 replies.

Ferszt says she was quite surprised to find that two facilities continue to use leg irons, belly chains and handcuffs during transport to prenatal visits.

She also learned that among the 19 prisons that responded, six of them cuff either a woman’s hands or her ankle when labor begins. During the delivery of the baby, one prison says that handcuffs stay on, and four reported back that an ankle shackle remains on.

While disturbed by the findings, Ferszt did find hope in conversations with two wardens, when she realized their shackling policies weren’t something they’d thought much about.

“For many rules and policies whether for women or men, they’ve existed for them a long time,” Ferszt says. “It hadn’t really occurred to these two wardens that this could potentially be a health problem, a health issue.”

She says the two wardens have since said they’ll sit down and make changes.

Despite the arrogant rationalizations and depressing ignorance of the responses from the powers-that-be, one inspiring story comes from some of the first inmates who spoke out about the abuse. Their age-old strategy: female solidarity. Again from the Trib:

In Illinois, the first movement against shackling came in 1999, after a former inmate named Warnice Robinson testified before a group of female legislators, explaining how, while pregnant and imprisoned for shoplifting, she had been shackled to a hospital bed through seven hours of labor. “The women legislators kind of expressed disbelief because it was so horrifying,” recalled Gail Smith, director of Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated Mothers, who had helped organize the day’s testimony. “There was a minor disruption, because the women who had been formerly incarcerated started shouting, ‘Believe her!’”

Washington state Gov. Chris Gregoire last week signed into law a bill [PDF] that forbids the routine shackling of pregnant women in and after labor, making it one of a handful of states that ban the practice.

The law, which takes effect June 10, states that no restraints of any kind may be used on a pregnant woman during transporation to and from medical visits or court proceedings during the third trimester of pregnancy or during postpartum recovery. It also stipulates that “no restraints of any kinds may be used” during labor or childbirth.

Exceptions of “extraordinary circumstances” during transportation are permitted; these exceptions are defined as necessary to prevent the woman from escaping, or from injuring herself or others, and for hospital use of medical restraints for patient/provider safety. In these cases, restraints are required to be the least restrictive available, and leg irons or waist chains are not allowed under any circumstances.

The law also forbids correctional personnel from being present in the room during labor and birth and places the power to remove restraints in the hands of doctors, nurses and other healthcare personnel over that of the correctional officers.

According to the Seattle Times, the state’s Department of Corrections and prisons already had policies banning restraint during labor and delivery, but the legislation adds restrictions regarding restraining women post-delivery. The Times also describes a court case involving a complaint about the 2007 shackling of a woman during labor and for three days following delivery. Legal Voice provides additional detail on that case.

Amnesty International provides further information about the status of shackling policies and laws throughout the United States. One update to the AI report: In 2009, New York Gov. David Paterson signed into law a bill banning the shackling of incarcerated women before and after they give birth while in custody.

On How a Bill Becomes a Law: The bill that will likely become the reconciliation bill on healthcare has been posted (PDF). Ezra Klein explains what it means.

Democratic leaders say a bill will pass this week.  House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) pledges obstruction, saying Republicans will do “everything we can to make it difficult for them, if not impossible, to pass the bill.”

Jen Nedeau covers the multiple threats to women’s health and reproductive rights that must be addressed, including the House anti-abortion language. You know it as the Stupak/Pitts admendment. But Richard Doerflinger, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ point man on abortion, should have had his name in there, too. Meanwhile, Jessica Arons tries to see the world through the lens of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).

In an editorial in Monday’s paper, The New York Times urges anti-abortion Democrats to accept the Senate’s restrictive provisions, the lesser of two evils.

Too Many Tests, Too Much Treatment: “A spate of recent reports suggests that many Americans are being overtreated. Maybe even President Barack Obama, champion of an overhaul and cost-cutting of the health care system,” reports Lindsey Tanner of the Associated Press.

“More care is not necessarily better care,” wrote cardiologist Dr. Rita Redberg, editor of Archives of Internal Medicine, commenting on Obama’srecent physical, which included prostate cancer screening and a virtual colonoscopy. The PSA isn’t recommended at any age and a colonoscopyisn’t recommended under age 50.

Over-testing may be due to a combination of what is known as “defensive medicine” — doctors ordering tests and procedures because they’re trying  protect themselves against lawsuits (or because they’ll be compensated by a fee-for-service system) — and patients insisting on tests and treatments that they’ve heard about or know is commonly prescribed. But the thinking around more care = better care may be shifting.

“This week alone,” writes Tanner, “a New England Journal of Medicine study suggested that too many patients are getting angiograms – invasive imaging tests for heart disease — who don’t really need them; and specialists convened by the National Institutes of Health said doctors are too often demanding repeat cesarean deliveries for pregnant women after a first C-section.”

Stopping the Campus Rape Crisis: Jaclyn Friedman, executive editor of Women, Action and the Media and co-editor of “Yes Means Yes,” wrote a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post on ending the silence around sexual assault on college campuses.

First, colleges can eliminate the “miscommunication” excuse that many rapists use by creating an on-campus standard that requires any party to a sexual interaction to make sure their partner is actively enthusiastic about what’s happening — not just not objecting. They can create judicial boards equipped to seriously investigate rape accusations, instead of throwing their hands up at the first sign that the accused’s testimony contradicts the accuser’s. They can defend the safety of the entire campus by permanently expelling those found guilty of sexual assault. And they can be transparent about every step of the process.

Plus: The Center for Public Integrity recently released “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice,” an in-depth report filled with useful data, articles and resources.

Recognition for Midwives: Granny midwife Margaret Charles Smith was inducted into the Alabama Women’s Hall of Fame at Judson College this month. Smith attended nearly 3,000 births between 1949, when she received her midwife permit, and 1981, when she attended her last birth. Her life story is told in a book Smith co-wrote with Linda Janet Holmes, “Listen to Me Good: The Life Story of an Alabama Midwife.”

Plus: Rachel previously noted that the National Library of Medicine is featuring an exhibition on African American midwives. ”Nothing To Work With But Cleanliness: African American ‘Grannies,’ Midwives & Health Reform” tells the story of “granny” midwives and the state and local training programs that educated them and succeeding generations of midwives. View a wonderful set of photos from the exhibition on Flickr.

Utah’s Controversial Law Charges Women and Girls With Murder for Miscarriages: Writing at AlterNet, Rose Aguilar breaks down the problems with Utah’s new law that makes it a criminal offense for having miscarriages caused by “intentional or knowing” acts.

“What happens to women who are in abusive relationships?” asks Planned Parenthood’s Melissa Bird. “What happens if a woman threatens to leave the abuser, falls down the stairs and loses the baby? What if the abuser beats the woman and causes a miscarriage? Could he turn her in? Who would the prosecutor believe? What happens if a drug addict who’s trying to get clean loses her baby? Will she be brought up on murder charges?”

Some critics point out the legislators erred in not considering the lack of access that young people have to comprehensive sex education, and the overall lack of contraception and health services, especially in remote parts of the state.

The Girls Who Kicked in Rock’s Door: Not exactly health related (unless you’re like me and consider loud music essential for well-being), but I am completely intrigued by the “The Runaways,” the new film about the 1970s all-girl rock band, starring Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart. Sia Michel writes about the story behind the film and its director, Floria Sigismondi.

After deliberating for only 37 minutes, a Kansas jury found Scott Roeder guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death of George Tiller.

Watch closing arguments by Roeder’s attorney and the prosecutor. You can also view the guilty verdict being read.

Roeder, 51, took the witness stand Thursday and admitted killing Tiller, who was one of the few doctors in the country to perform late-term abortions.

“I did what I thought was needed to be done to protect the children,” said Roeder. “I shot him.”

Roeder said he was not remorseful. After the killing, which took place in Tiller’s church, Roeder said he felt “a sense of relief.”

Roeder was also found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. Sentencing is set for March 9. District Attorney Nola Foulston said she would be requesting the “Hard 50,” meaning Roeder would not be eligible for parole for 50 years.

The Wichita Eagle has a good collection of background information and trial stories, along with links to other media coverage and related abortion issues. View: http://www.kansas.com/news/tiller/index.html

Jeanne Tiller, George Tiller’s widow, and the Tiller family, released this statement:

“The family of Dr. George Tiller would like to thank the jury, District Attorney Nola Foulston and her office and law enforcement for their service in this difficult matter. Once again, a Sedgwick County jury has reached a just verdict. We also want to thank George’s countless friends and supporters in Wichita and around the country who have offered their comfort.

“At this time we hope that George can be remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he provided us as a husband, father and grandfather.”

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement in response to the conviction:

“The jury examined the facts of this case and rightfully convicted Scott Roeder for the brutal murder of Dr. George Tiller inside his church in Kansas. Our thoughts are with Dr. Tiller’s family and friends. Even though this conviction brings a murderer to justice, it won’t replace the husband, father, and grandfather they lost last May. Dr. Tiller was a tireless advocate for reproductive health who called on us to ‘trust women’ to make the personal, private decisions that are best for them and their families. We will continue to honor his legacy of compassion and resolve.

“We also call on opponents of a woman’s right to choose to end the practice of inflammatory rhetoric and tactics that inspire this kind of violent action from the most extreme factions of the anti-choice movement. No other abortion provider’s family should have to endure the tragedy of seeing their loved one killed for providing an essential and legal health service to women.”

Publicado por Rachel / del orginial en inglés: March 24, 2009

OBOS is committed to expanding our audience and in this spirit we’ve asked former board member Moises Russo to translate into Spanish several of our blog entries. We hope to translate more entries in the coming year.

En OBOS estamos comprometidos a expandir nuestra audiencia de lector@s  y en este espíritu le hemos solicitado a Moisés Russo, ex-miembro de la Junta de OBOS, que traduzca al español varios de los blogs que tenemos en la página electrónica. Esperamos continuar con dichas traducciones durante este año.

Buenas noticias vía The New York Times:

Un juez federal le ha ordenado a la Administración de Alimentos y Comida (FDA) el día lunes que haga la píldora anticonceptiva del día después “Plan B” disponible sin prescripción médica a mujeres jóvenes desde los 17 años de edad.

El juez falló que la agencia había cedido en forma inapropiada a presiones políticas de la administración Bush el 2006 cuando estableció el límite en los 18 años de edad.

La agencia tiene 30 días para cumplir con la orden, en la cual el juez también instó a la agencia a considerar remover todas las restricciones a las ventas de Plan B sin prescripción. El medicamento consiste en dos píldoras que previenen la concepción si son tomadas dentro de las primeras 72 horas luego de una relación sexual.*

Nancy Northup, Presidenta del Centro por los Derechos Reproductivos, el cual demando a la FDA en representación de organizaciones de mujeres e individuos, llamó el fallo del juez “una completa reivindicación del argumento que los defensores de los derechos reproductivos han estado haciendo por muchos años, que en administración Bush era la política, y no la ciencia, la que guiaba las decisiones en temas de salud de las mujeres.

“Plan B” ha estado disponible en los Estados Unidos desde 1999, pero inicialmente solo con prescripción médica. Hubo que esperar hasta el 2006 para que la FDA aprobara las ventas sin prescripción médica a mujeres desde los 18 años de edad, lo cual significa que debe estar en stock detrás del mostrador en las farmacias y que las mujeres deben mostrar un comprobante de su edad. Esto lo hace difícil  para que algunas mujeres, incluyendo a inmigrantes sin documentos, puedan obtener las píldoras en forma fácil cuando las necesitan.

En su fallo de 52 páginas, el Juez Edgard R. Korman de la Corte del Distrito Federal en Nueva Cork concluyó que “no hay ningún propósito útil que esté siendo cautelado si se continúa la privación de acceso a Plan B a mujeres de 17 años sin prescripción médica”, y que “tanto los oficiales como personal de la FDA han estado de acuerdo en que mujeres de 17 años pueden usar “Plan B” en forma segura sin prescripción médica”.

Korman dijo que la decisión de la FDA “no fue el resultado de un proceso de toma de decisiones razonado y de buena fe dentro de la agencia”. El juez citó a oficiales de la FDA por comunicarse en forma impropia con oficiales de la Casa Blanca  sobre “Plan B” y llenar el panel de expertos a cargo de analizar el medicamento con personas que tienen visiones en contra del aborto. La FDA también ignoró las conclusiones sobre seguridad del medicamento a las que llegó de su propio panel asesor.

En un artículo publicado la semana pasada en el Huffington Post, Northrup resume el bizantino trayecto de la aplicación del estatus de venta sin prescripción a “Plan B”, y describe lo que se conoció durante el juicio:

Meses de testimonios en el caso federal han dejado al descubierto una red de engaños tras bambalinas, repleto de oficiales de alto nivel en la FDA doblegándose a influencias políticas externas, eludiendo las regulaciones de la agencia, para finalmente conspirar para otorgar solamente acceso restringido a “Plan B”.

Testimonios judiciales revelaron que un oficial confesó a uno de sus colegas que tuvo que rechazar la solicitud de “Plan B” por miedo a perder su empleo. Otro le dijo a un colega que el plan era que la agencia pospusiera cualquier decisión sobre el medicamento todo el tiempo que fuera posible y, si se vieran forzados a actuar, aprobar el medicamento con una restricción etaria, todo para “apaciguar a los votantes de la administración [Bush]”.

Susan Wood, la anterior directora de la FDA para asuntos de salud de las mujeres, que renunció el 2005 como protesta a las demoras en aprobar “Plan B”, le dijo al Times ahora hay una nueva oportunidad de “restaurar la integridad científica de la FDA”.

Además: ¿Necesitas información sobre Anticoncepción de emergencia, o si tu farmacia más cercana la tiene en stock? Revisa el “Sitio Web de Anticoncepción de Emergencia”, un recurso independiente, con revisión de pares administrado por la Oficina de Investigación sobre Población de la Universidad de Princeton y por la Asociación de Profesionales en Salud Sexual y Reproductiva.

This post was written in connection with the annual Blog for Choice Day, Friday, Jan. 22. Apologies for the delay!

This year marks the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the fifth anniversary of Blog for Choice Day, started by Jessica Valenti and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

NARAL is dedicating Blog for Choice 2010 to the legacy of Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered last May in his church foyer as he welcomed parishioners attending morning mass. Tiller provided abortions to women who often had no place else to turn and whose health, or the health of the fetus, was threatened.

Scott Roeder, 51, a vocal anti-abortion advocate, admitted in November that he killed Tiller, and he claims the killing was justified. Roeder’s first-degree murder trial started on Friday — yes, Roe v. Wade’s anniversary. You can follow the trial coverage at http://www.kansas.com/news/tiller/index.html.

- Utah and D.C. enacted laws to ensure that sexual-assault survivors receive information about and access to emergency contraception in emergency rooms.

Setbacks
In 2009, 14 states enacted 29 anti-choice measures, increasing the number of anti-choice measures enacted in states since 1995 to 610. Examples include:

- Virginia enacted a law that establishes “Choose Life” license plates. A portion of the proceeds from these plates funds anti-choice organizations known as “crisis pregnancy centers” that target women considering abortion and often mislead, coerce and intimidate them.

- Arizona enacted a far-reaching law that includes a litany of anti-choice provisions that, among other things, subject women to state-mandated lectures and waiting periods that delay access to abortion care. The law also allows certain individuals or entities to refuse to provide abortion services and to refuse to provide or dispense contraceptives.

Watch
Grit TV with Laura Flanders
This episode includes a discussion with Carol Joffe, author of “Dispatches from the Abortion Wars,” Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and Silvia Henriquez, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. Learn about the current state of reproductive health and rights and how anti-abortion efforts — whether through legislation or terrorism — hurt all pregnant women.

Listen
PRX: “Hyde-ing” the Right to Choose
While lawmakers in Washington mull over the nuts and bolts of health care reform, advocates are concerned that a woman’s fundamental right to reproductive health services is endangered. We explore how access has been denied for decades to young women and poor or low-income women who are disproportionately women of color. On this edition, Stupak, the Hyde Amendment, and religion.

Featuring:
Stephanie Poggi, Executive Director, National Network of Abortion Funds
Jenny, shares her story about having an abortion
Jon O’Brien, Catholics for Choice President
Guadalupe Rodriguez, ACCESS/Women’s Health Rights Coalition Program & Public Policy Director

Courts in Philadephia recently ruled in favor of two plaintiffs who sued Pfizer because they believed their breast cancer was caused by taking Prempro, an estrogen plus progestin combined hormone replacement therapy (formerly sold by Wyeth).

More than $100 million was awarded by juries between those two cases, although news reports indicate that Pfizer will appeal and damages awarded are likely to be reduced; a Pfizer spokesperson said the company does not believe the verdicts “were supported by the evidence or the law.” About 10,000 similar cases are apparently pending at this time.

In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative study was released results indicating that women taking estrogen plus progestin hormone replacement (such as Prempro) were more likely to develop breast cancer than women taking placebo, and their cancers were more likely to be more advanced. The trial was stopped early that year after it became clear to investigators that the risks of combination hormone therapy outweighed the reported benefits.

As a result of WHI findings, in 2003 the FDA required the addition of a black box warning to the drug’s label to state that estrogen and estrogen plus progestin therapies should not be used for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, and to warn of increased risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, invasive breast cancer, pulmonary emboli, and deep vein thrombosis in postmenopausal women taking the estrogen/progestin combo.

Supreme Court Decisions and You: The National Women’s Law Center has released an analysis of 2008-2009 Supreme Court decisions that have a direct effect on women’s lives. Here’s the report (pdf); more discussion at the NWLC blog, Womenstake:

In Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, the Supreme Court safeguarded women’s and girls’ rights by allowing them to pursue remedies for gender discrimination in schools under both Title IX and the Constitution. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, the Court ruled that employees are protected from being subject to retaliation for cooperating with an employer’s internal investigation of discrimination. “The Court’s decisions in these two cases kept hard-won protections in place,” [NWLC Co-President Marcia] Greenberger said.

But not all outcomes were positive:

“In AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, the Supreme Court ignored the realities of the workplace and the intent of Congress and ruled against female workers,” Greenberger said. As Justice Ginsburg noted in a strong dissent in the case, the Court’s decision permitted AT&T to pay women lower pension benefits for the rest of their lives.

Gag on Global Gag Rule: Ever since President Ronald Reagan instituted the “global gag rule” in 1984, its existence has been dependent on which party is in the White House. If it’s a Democrat, it’s revoked; if it’s Republican, it’s reinstated. On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-10 to approve an amendment to a Department of State and foreign affairs appropriations bill that would make permanent President Obama’s reversal of the global gag rule. Emily Douglas has more.

The global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City policy (the site of the United Nations International Conference on Population where it was first announced), prohibits international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from offering abortion services or providing information about safe abortion, even if they use other funding. It would be great to see it gone, for good.

New NIH Director: President Obama has nominated Francis Collins, best known for leading the public effort to sequence the human genome, to be director of the National Institutes of Health. Chris Wilson at Slate looks at how Collins, an evangelical Christian, has combined his faith in God with his faith in science.

New Violence Against Women Advisor: “Vice President Joe Biden’s June 26 announcement of a White House Advisor on Violence Against Women stirred some public grumbling about President Barack Obama’s recent ‘czar frenzy,’” writes Kayla Hutzler at Women’s eNews.

“But at a time of rising pressure on domestic violence shelters, representatives of two of the largest advocacy groups for ending domestic violence were far more enthusiastic about the creation of the post. They were also excited at the naming of Lynn Rosenthal, a former executive director at the New Mexico Coalition against Domestic Violence in Albuquerque, with a substantial resume of safety advocacy and working ties to Biden.”

Here’s the White House announcement, and a New York Times editorial in favor of the appointment.

The Last Word on Sarah Palin (Fingers Crossed): Go read “Palin’s Long March to a Short-Notice Resignation,” then head over to Slate for Dahlia Lithwick’s parting shot: “[Wh]en the dust settles, the lesson may be that she was simply a woman who made no sense.”

Looking Ahead to 2012: Jill Miller Zimon wonders, “Could we see a female-female GOP ticket for president and vice president in 2012?”

Update on Conscience Clause: Kay Steiger has written a good round-up of efforts at the state level to pass legislation that allows medical professionals to refuse to provide services that violate their religious or moral beliefs.

Speaking of conscience clauses, anyone remember the federal rule instituted in the final days of the Bush administration? It cut off federal funding for state and local governments, hospitals, health plans and clinics that did not fully accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to provide care they feel violates their beliefs. Aimed at abortion and family planning services, it went beyond laws that already provide for healthcare workers and threatened access to many health services, including infertility treatment, end-of-life care, blood transfusions and mental health counseling.

President Obama moved to rescind the rule, as expected, but the process has been very slow. The 3o-day public comment period on rule changes ended in April; Health and Human Services Department is still reviewing the hundreds of thousands of comments received.

Administration officials acknowledged early on that they were looking for a compromise, but we haven’t heard much more on the subject until President Obama told a group of religion reporters earlier this month that the new policy would “certainly not be weaker” than what existed before President Bush’s expansion:

We will be coming out with I think more specific guidelines.  But I can assure all of your readers that when this review is complete there will be a robust conscience clause in place.  It may not meet the criteria of every possible critic of our approach, but it certainly will not be weaker than what existed before the changes were made.

David Brody has the full transcript of Obama’s remarks.