Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Courts see reason in Oklahoma

The Oklahoma County District Court called a 2009 law passed by legislature, in which a woman who received an abortion would have been required to write personal details about her choice to have an abortion, her relationships, and her financial situation on a public website, unconstitutional.

However, it was not because it was an invasion of privacy. Instead, the bill simply addressed too many topics, violating Oklahoma’s “single-subject” rule.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, the organization that challenged the law, filed the charge in September, and received this decision February 19.

One of the co-plaintiffs described the law as “like undressing women in public, exposing their most personal issues on the Internet.”

The law, besides creating the new Web site for abortion-related issues, redefined abortion terms, banned sex-selective abortion, and created new abortion reporting requirements. Doctors would have had to file information on a woman’s age, marital status, education level, number of previous pregnancies, type of abortion, and the mother’s relationship to the father. Doctors who did not obey risked loss of their medical licenses or criminal charges.

The law went into effect in November 2009, and the Web site would have launched in March.

Other statistics:

Only 3 doctors in the state of Oklahoma know how to perform abortions

The Web site in question would have cost taxpayers over $250,000 each year

Oklahoma has the sixth highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. (I wonder why…)

Laws like the this one from Oklahoma, which deliberately attack a woman’s right to privacy when making reproductive choices, are not just unconstitutional, they’re an outrage.

Please help us make sure we never have to fight for our rights in Minnesota! Join us on Pro-choice Rally day, March 4th at the Capitol!

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) delivered the keynote address at the NARAL Pro-Choice America Anniversary Luncheon.

Sen. Franken’s remarks as prepared for delivery:
Shortly after I (finally) became a Senator, I was appointed to the Judiciary Committee.
At first I thought: Well, this is weird. I'm not a lawyer. How am I going to ask the right questions?
But I did some research and discovered most Americans aren't lawyers. It's true.
And so to me, the right questions aren’t the ones a lawyer would necessarily ask. They’re questions the American people would ask.
And that’s what I did in my first hearing. It just happened that my first hearing was a high profile one: the Judiciary Committee was considering the nomination for Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I got an early lesson on my unique challenges as a Senator, because a lot of attention was paid to a colloquy I had with now Justice, then Judge Sotomayor. Sotomayor had told my colleague Amy Klobuchar that she had become a prosecutor because of The Perry Mason Show. So when it was my turn, I told her that it intrigued me that she had been inspired to become a prosecutor by a show in which the prosecutor lost every case. And she said very pointedly, “Except one.”
I said, jokingly, “We’ll get to that later” with absolutely no intention of doing that. But toward the end of my 30 minutes, I had a little less than two minutes left and not enough time to develop my last line of questioning. So, I said, “OK. What was the case that Perry Mason lost?”
And Judge Sotomayor said, “I don’t know.”
And I said, “Didn’t the White House prepare you?
And that got a big laugh and a lot of attention. “Al Franken’s long-awaited first joke.”
Unfortunately, that exchange overshadowed a far more important exchange we had had moments earlier.
Let me set it up a bit. The day before, one of my Republican colleagues had been - I guess the right word is “hectoring” - Judge Sotomayor, repeatedly asking her whether the word “abortion” appeared anywhere in the Constitution.
Of course, it doesn’t. But whether it does or not is beside the point. So she answered by speaking to the question behind the question. But finally after being asked for the third time, Judge Sotomayor replied, “No. The word ‘abortion’ is not in the Constitution.”
Which my colleague treated as an “Aha!” moment.
So the next day, I felt compelled to follow up.
I brought up her exchange with my colleague from the previous day, and then asked, “Do the words ‘birth control’ appear anywhere in the Constitution?”
“No, they don’t,” Judge Sotomayor replied quite correctly.
“How about the word ‘privacy?’ Does that appear anywhere in the Constitution?”
She said. “No, the word ‘privacy’ isn’t in the Constitution either.”
I think you can see where I was going. And so could everyone in the hearing room.
You know, there are a lot of words that express bedrock constitutional principles – words like federalism, checks and balances, and separation of powers – that never appear in the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that the Constitution didn’t set up a federalist system, enumerating certain express powers to the federal government and reserving certain powers for the states. And it doesn’t mean that the Constitution didn’t set up a system of “checks and balances” by creating the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, granting each certain powers, creating what is well known as a “separation of powers.”
And even though the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, the Court has long recognized a protection for privacy.
And that is why I followed my questions about the words “birth control” and “privacy” to ask whether Judge Sotomayor agreed that the Court had held that the Constitution created not just a right to privacy, but that it was also established precedent that women had a right to choose to have an abortion.
She said, yes, that was established precedent. That it was settled law. And she agreed that the job of a Supreme Court justice was not to make new law from the bench.
You know, it’s funny. Whenever a Republican runs for the Senate or for president and is asked, “What do you look for in a prospective Justice for the Supreme Court?” Republicans always answer, “I want a judge that doesn’t make law from the bench.”
And then they’re asked, “Can you name a Justice on the Supreme Court that bests reflects your philosophy?” And then they answer Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas, who has voted to overturn more federal laws than any Justice on the Court. And now they might answer “John Roberts.”
John Roberts, who during his own confirmation hearings promised the Senate that he “had no agenda” and that he would follow the precedents of the court.
Let me quote John Roberts from his confirmation hearing: “I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. ... It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided.” And then, “The role of the judge is limited; the judge is to decide the cases before them; they’re not to legislate; they’re not to execute the laws.
This is the same Roberts who, just last month, decided that he was neither guided nor bound by precedent. It was Roberts and his court who overturned a century’s worth of established precedent, and gave corporations even more power to drown out the voices of average Americans in our electoral system.
It was Roberts who made the term “settled law” an oxymoron. (I’ll take a break for a moment while you think about that.)
I think Norm Ornstein put it best: “Chief Justice Roberts broke every vow he made in his confirmation hearings… It is sad – made sadder by knowing that for perhaps decades to come, the United States will have a chief justice who would, and did, say anything to burnish his reputation and avoid a rocky confirmation hearing, and showed that his words mean nothing.”
For anyone who took comfort in claims made by conservative justices that they would respect the precedents of Roe, the Citizens United case should be the wake-up call of the century.
And that is why…
Even though we have elected a pro-choice president to the White House.
Even though we have confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Even though we have expanded the pro-choice majorities in the House and Senate.
Even though we ended the international gag rule.
Even though we saw the abortion funding ban lifted in the District of Columbia.
… we cannot get complacent.
In the last year alone….
We saw Representative Bart Stupak use the health care bill as a bludgeon, restricting women’s health choices in a bill that was meant to expand them.
We watched with frustration as the Supreme Court overturned a century’s worth of precedents to further their conservative activist agenda.
We are watching as the Senate continues to block Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation to a critical role at the Department of Justice because of her pro-choice views.
And we saw Dr. Tiller murdered at church… AT HIS CHURCH…. murdered for the choice he provided for women.
I want to thank Dr. Sella for being here today, and I want to join you in honoring his memory.
And that’s why the work you do at NARAL is indispensible. Because the forces on the other side are persistent, single-minded, and even violent
A woman’s right to choose is never fully won. It must be won anew every day, every year, every Congress, and every generation.
Even though most Americans support abortion rights, even though most Americans understand that no woman ever plans an unwanted pregnancy, that no woman ever thinks she’ll have to make such a painful and personal choice, those who would deny that choice press on, undeterred.
In a lot of ways that fight is going to be incremental. In 2007 – after Justice O’Connor’s departure, we saw the Roberts Court reject the longstanding precedent that an exception for a woman’s health must be a component of any law that restricts abortion rights.
Even when the woman’s health includes her reproductive health. That’s what Dr. Tiller did so often in his work. Perform abortions on fetuses that would not be viable outside the womb in order to protect a woman’s ability to bear children in the future. Ironically, what could be more pro-life?
I fear this Court – and anti-choice advocates – are happy to adopt an incremental strategy that makes it harder for you to marshal your forces. They’re happy to keep chipping away, again and again, at abortion rights in a way that the American people might not even notice.
If we’re waiting for that one big galvanizing event, that one event that will mobilize progressives to action, I think we have to recognize that that day may never come.
Not until the force of Roe has already been degraded beyond recognition.
So what do we know?
We know that having pro-choice majorities in Congress isn’t enough.
That anti-choice legislators – on both sides of the aisle – can and will do whatever they can to force those of us who believe unconditionally in a woman’s reproductive rights to choose between two bad outcomes:
Look at what they did, pitting abortion issues against health care expansion – pitting the president’s signature legislative goal against a position that he, and we, abhor.
We learned that in the House, a group of anti-choice Democrats wield incredible power. And that in the Senate, a filibuster could only be overcome when anti-choice Democrats imposed humiliating conditions on women who simply want to pay extra for health insurance that covers abortion.
After a year of watching the health care debate unfold, it’s clear that the voices of the pro-choice movement are muted in our halls of Congress, to the extent that several Democrats who had previously had 100% ratings with this very organization felt safe in voting for the Stupak amendment.
Now, let me say that there are millions of people in this country who have a sincere objection to abortion, and much of that is based on strongly held religious conviction. And I respect that. In America, we respect each other’s religious beliefs. But we are not governed by them.
It’s called the “separation of church and state,” a phrase which, like “separation of powers,” does not appear in the Constitution, but which is created just as clearly in the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
So to those people whose religious conviction leads them to a moral opposition to abortion, I say that’s your right, that’s your choice. Don’t have an abortion. But also, do everything you can to work together with us to diminish the reasons we have abortions
Support comprehensive sex education and access to affordable family planning services. Support funding for maternal child health programs, WIC, and affordable child care so new mothers have security and the resources they need to raise a healthy child.
Oh yeah, and support comprehensive affordable health care for all.
So this is my pledge to you: I will be unwavering in my support for women’s choice and women’s rights:
Last year I introduced the “Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act” to address the backlog of rape kits. It guarantees that survivors of sexual assaults never have to pay for their own rape kit analysis. It requires more health professionals get trained to administer rape kit exams. And most importantly, it requires that local law enforcement address their backlogs of unexamined rape kits. Too many rape kits are taken, and then left to collect dust on the shelf.
In the interest of justice, we have to do better than that.
This is a fight we must wage.
In December, I introduced a bill that would guarantee that 350,000 women serving in the military all have the same access to emergency contraception as civilian women living here at home.
It’s unfathomable to me that people who are anti-choice would oppose the ability of women to have emergency contraception. Especially women in uniform who are putting themselves in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women who we know are victims of a high rate of sexual assault.
The ironic fact is that Plan B is available on many bases here in the U.S. and at some bases overseas. My bill, for which Olympia Snowe is the lead co-sponsor, would simply require that it is available at every base. If this one doesn’t fall in the “no-brainer” category, I don’t know what does.
It’s one thing to be against women having emergency contraception. It’s quite another to be for them randomly not having it.
And where they don’t have it is Baghdad and Kabul, where they can’t just walk to a pharmacy.
Women are outnumbered in the military. They are outnumbered in the Senate. They are outnumbered in the House, and outnumbered in the courts. Everywhere women are outnumbered, there’s an unfortunate tendency for their rights to be marginalized.
This isn’t a fight about a single choice. It’s a fight about choices. It’s a fight about rights. And it’s a fight we must continually wage.
I want to leave you today with a story. It’s one that should sound familiar to the millions of women across this country who understand in a very personal way the importance of protecting women’s reproductive rights.
The story is about a Minnesotan named Kim. Kim was a 19-year-old single mother. She was struggling to make ends meet, working full time as a receptionist. Her daughter had health insurance through the state, but she did not. Her boyfriend, her daughter’s father, was extremely abusive.
She was getting the pill through Planned Parenthood at a reduced rate, but after her car broke down, she couldn’t afford that either.
One day her boyfriend demanded that they have sex, but refused to use a condom. He threatened her. She was too afraid to say no. And she ended up pregnant.
She said, “Abortion was absolutely the right choice for me at that time… Had I stayed in that relationship and brought another child into the mix, I would have continued the cycle of abuse and poverty.”
“Making the decision to stop the cycle [allowed me] to concentrate on my daughter and ensure that she will have the financial and emotional stability to go to college and live a successful, happy life. Women need options, women need choices.”
I am here to ask you to keep up the fight, for Kim, and for every woman who has learned – and will learn – that women need options and choices.
Thank you for the work you’ve done – and are continuing to do -- to stand up for women’s rights.
I’m proud to stand with you.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Show your support for responsible sex ed on Thursday!

HF2986 - the 2010 Responsible Sex Ed bill - will be heard by the House Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee on Thursday, February 25th at 2:45pm, in room 200 of the State Office Building. We know that sex ed programs provide information that Minnesota youth need to be safe and healthy. Attend the hearing and demontrate to legislators the broad public support for sex ed! For up to date hearing information, check the Committee's schedule for any last minute changes. For additional information and directions to the Capitol visit www.leg.state.mn.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Choice News Snip-its

· Personhood Colorado claims to have gathered 80,000 signatures in support of legislation that would add fertilized embryos to the definition of humans in the state Constitution.
· In Missouri, a bill was introduced in the Senate that would require women seeking abortions to receive information about the fetus and wait 24 hours for the procedure.
· RH Reality Check puts the anti-choice group, Human Life Alliance, in their place by highlighting myths in their advertisements.
· The debate over making the HPV vaccine available to young women gets realistic as the New York State Legislature hears a bill that would let health care professionals give the vaccine to women younger than 18 without parental consent.

Insurance Coverage for Abortions

In a recent RH Reality Check article, author Robin Marty discusses the newly common trend of attempting to remove abortion coverage from numerous states’ health care plans. The favorite “abortion rider” has been discussed in full force within legislatures across the nation including North Carolina and Kansas. In North Carolina, the Wake County Board of Commissioners is considering eliminating coverage of elective abortions from the health plan for county employees. In Kansas, the House debated on a law that would prohibit insurance providers from covering most elective abortions under basic Kansas health care policies.

Partner Violence and Unintended Pregnancy: Time to Make the Connections

A recent study published in the international journal, “Contraception” shows the horrifying reality of women who have been forced into pregnancy by their partners. The article also claims that a huge majority of unintended pregnancies occur because of this. RH Reality check points out that reproductive coercion takes on many forms. Within the study, 19% of participants reported pregnancy coercion, and 15% experienced birth control sabotage.

Sex Education Bills introduced in MN!

This year Minnesota has seen increases in HIV and STI rates following two years of increasing adolescent pregnancy rates. Young people need access to developmentally appropriate, medically accurate information now. Responsible sex ed bills were introduced (HF2986/SF2645) this week! Stay tuned for more details as the session progresses.

SO how can you help us keep the momentum going? Simple, by attending Pro-Choice Lobby Day! Raise your voice for choice at the Capitol on March 4th. Click here to register!

Friday, February 19, 2010

Attempted Stupak here in Minnesota!

On Thursday the anti-choice forces introduced an egregious anti-choice amendment to the bill that funds our state’s health program for low-income people.

That’s right; it was a Stupak/Pitts-type amendment to a program that doesn’t even cover abortion. Fortunately, the amendment was defeated by a tied vote and the bill went on to approval 125 to 9.

This type of amendment is why we need so many pro-choice legislators at the Capitol, and why your elected representatives need to know where you stand on the right to choose.

We have the perfect opportunity for you to then thank your representative or voice your outrage!

Join us on March 4 for our Pro-Choice Lobby Day! Spend the morning with us, and you can personally thank the representatives who stood strong against this type of political nonsense or let those who voted the wrong way know how disappointed you are.

Visit ProChoiceLobbyDay.org to learn more and RSVP!

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Sex Ed Bills Introduced!

The 2010 legislative session is underway and sex ed is in the mix! Our 2010 strategy is to expand the audience of legislators in the know about sex ed - and who better to hear about the positive impacts of responsible sex ed than the Health and Human Service Policy committees. This year Minnesota has seen serious increases in HIV and STI rates - following two years of increasing adolescent pregnancy rates. Young people need access to developmentally appropriate, medically accurate information now.
Responsible sex ed bills were introduced (HF2986/SF2645) earlier this week and referred to health policy committee! The best way for you to support these bills is to attend Pro-Choice Lobby Day on March 4th and tell your Legislators to stand up for Minnesota's kids. Simply go to www.prochoicelobbyday.org and sign up today!

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The reality of 'reproductive coercion'

A recent study has been published that shows the horrifying reality of women who have been forced into pregnancy by their partners. The article also claims that a huge majority of unintended pregnancies are due to this phenomenon.

Elizabeth Miller MD PhD and Jay Silverman PhD recently released a study highlighting what they call “reproductive coercion”, which includes forced sex, fear of violence if a woman refuses sex, or inability to negotiate condom or contraceptive use while in an abusive relationship. The actions of these abusive partners include taking off or intentionally breaking condoms, interfering with the woman’s birth control schedule, or threatening the woman into sex by saying they may beat the woman or leave her if she didn’t get pregnant.

The researchers talked to many women in five reproductive health care clinics in California seeking some form of treatment, and had them fill out an anonymous electronic questionnaire.

Shockingly, 53% of the participants reported that they had experienced physical or sexual violence at some time in their lives, and 25% had experienced ‘reproductive coercion.”

19% reported pregnancy coercion, and 15% experienced birth control sabotage.


The study mentions several applications of the study’s findings, such as the need to educate women who may consider physical violence and reproductive coercion as separate experiences, when instead they should be considered one in the same. It could also improve family planning services and counselors, which could point women toward contraception that would be harder for a woman’s partner to detect.

The fact that so many women are affected by this abusive behavior is severely disheartening, and points out the need to educate young girls in how to avoid getting into this kind of situation both in Minnesota and nationwide.

Help NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota lobby for change in reproductive education March 4th at the Capitol!

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Possible pro-choice license plate for Virginia

The Washington Post pointed out just one instance of pro-life supporters getting unfair representation last week.

Reproductive-rights advocates in Richmond, VA are pushing a license plate that says “Trust Women, Respect Choice” to balance out the “Choose Life” license plates already in the area.

This would make Virginia the fourth state in the U.S. to offer drivers the option. It’s also the only state that would require legislative approval for it. There are already 23 states that have approved the “choose life” plate, and the 520,000 that have been sold will be on roads in March.

Opponents of the licenses include the state’s attorney and the governor, who claim they have no problem with the plates, but instead that Planned Parenthood offices may make a profit. To provide the plates to drivers, the full legislature’s approval would be needed, along with the governor’s signature.

Supporters are threatening to sue if drivers aren’t given the option of the Pro-Choice plates, claiming it’s unconstitutional not to offer both options to drivers.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

In Memory of Dr. Tiller

Focus On... Something Else

CBS will air Focus on the Family's new anti-choice ad during the Super Bowl - subjecting nearly 100 million people to an ad that doesn't tell the true story of Focus on the Family's extreme agenda.
The ad will tell the story of Tim Tebow's mother, who in 1987 decided to continue a pregnancy which her doctors warned her could threaten her life. Does NARAL Pro-Choice America disagree with her decision?
No, we're not criticizing her decision. In fact, Tim Tebow's mother made the choice that was best for her and her family... and that's exactly what it means to be pro-choice. Unfortunately, Focus on the Family wants to take that choice away from other women.
Tell me more about Focus on the Family.
Focus on the Family has an unmistakable anti-choice, anti-birth-control, anti-sex-education, and anti-gay agenda. Its views on women are insulting and dangerous. Here are just a few of the outrageous claims the group has made:
Its web site urges women facing unintended pregnancy to seek "wise advice" because "the hormones and extreme emotions of pregnancy make reasonable decisions more difficult."
Its web site calls sex outside of marriage "destructive."
In 2008, Focus on the Family endorsed a divisive anti-choice "personhood" ballot measure in Colorado that would have banned abortion and threatened birth control. Fortunately, pro-choice Coloradoans, led by NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, resoundingly rejected this measure.
Focus on the Family spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support California's discriminatory Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. The organization's founder, James Dobson, claimed that gay marriage will "destroy the Earth."
What you can do to show you're against this ad:
Instead of watching Focus on the Family's ad, for 30 seconds, just focus on… something else. Use Facebook and Twitter to tell everyone why you object to the ad and tell them what you'll focus on instead of watching it.
On Facebook, use this as your status update, and just add your answer in place of [YOUR ANSWER HERE]. Make sure to link to this page to help educate your friends.
Focus On The Family is anti-choice, anti-birth-control, & anti-gay. When its Super Bowl ad runs, I'll join @NARAL Pro-Choice America and #FocusOn [YOUR ANSWER HERE] http://bit.ly/b9RoSE. If you agree, post what you'll #FocusOn as your status.
Here's what to post on Twitter:
FocusOnTheFamily is anti-choice & anti-gay. When its SuperBowl ad runs, I'll join @naral & #FocusOn [YOUR ANSWER HERE] http://bit.ly/b9RoSE Pls RT
Here are some ideas for what to write:
I'll focus on catching up with my friends.
I'll focus on my family.
I'll focus on letting the dog out.
I'll focus on getting another beer.
I'll focus on refilling the salsa bowl.
I'll focus on watching the Puppy Bowl.
We're sure you can come up with other great ideas.
About NARAL Pro-Choice America
NARAL Pro-Choice America fights to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing legal abortion.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Wisconsin passing legislation for contraceptive education in schools

Wisconsin passed legislation Thursday, Jan 28th that will require all sex education classes to include instruction on contraceptives in an effort to reduce teen pregnancies. Information taught in classes would include health benefits, side effects, proper use, and other methods to prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. The measure was widely supported by nurses and health departments, the WI teacher's union, and the WI branch of Planned Parenthood. It passed in the Senate 18-15, with all Democrats backing the bill and all Republicans against it. Gov. Jim Doyle said he supported the bill as well. The measure would take effect in the 2010 school year.

Opponents of the bill said that it sent a pro-premarital sex message, and that schools should instead focus on teaching abstinence as a way to prevent pregnancies or STIs.

Sadly, this would make WI only one of 16 states required to include contraceptive education in their sex education classes. Also, WI is one of 22 remaining states that require abstinence and celibacy to be stressed as the best choice for protection against pregnancy.

It is tremendously important that Minnesota follow in Wisconsin's footsteps and add contraceptive education into all sex education class agendas. MN teens are faced with horrifying statistics, like the fact that 1 in 4 MN teens contract an STI by the time they reach 24,rates of HIV infections were up by 13 percent in 2009, and 1 in 3 women will become pregnant by the age of 21. A vast majority of this can be avoided with comprehensive sex education.

Help us to shed light on the necessity of sex education at Pro-choice Lobby Day on March 4th at the Capitol!