The Assault on Womens Sexual and Reproductive Rights

[Kobi]

By Nick Valencia, CNN
updated 6:52 PM EDT, Wed March 28, 2012


(CNN) -- An Oklahoma County judge has overruled a state law requiring women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound of the fetus before the abortion, according to court documents

District Judge Brian Dixon's clerk confirmed the decision Wednesday, saying the judge ruled that the law was "unconstitutional and unenforceable."

The decision overrules an Oklahoma state statute passed in 2010 that would have forced women seeking an abortion to see a sonogram of the fetus and have the fetus described in detail.

Enforcement of the statute was halted in May 2010, shortly after it passed, by a temporary injunction, but Wednesday's ruling makes that injunction permanent and restrains law enforcement from enforcing the act.

It was not clear whether there were instances of the law being enforced in the time between its passage and the imposition of the temporary injunction.

[Kobi]

Moments ago, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a pre-election challenge to the Oklahoma “personhood” ballot initiative.

The intention of this initiative is to ban all abortions, but it would go much further by:

- Outlawing many forms of birth control—including IUDs, emergency contraception, and even some forms of the Pill.
- Putting doctors and women at risk of criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than engaging in routine OB-GYN care.
- Potentially halting many forms of infertility treatment—including IVF.
- Opening women to potential criminal prosecution for suffering miscarriages.

Six brave women and men have stepped forward as plaintiffs to help us fight this initiative—stand in solidarity with them by sending a letter of support today.


http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/...tion_KEY=10167

[Kobi]

Famed "fratire" writer Tucker Max attempted to donate half a million dollars to the cash-strapped organization, but was denied. Why? Because sometimes a check isn't just a check.

You’d think that any organization facing financial issues would be thrilled to accept a hefty donation. For Planned Parenthood, for example, a check for $500,000 could go a long way in helping women get access to health care. Except, perhaps, when the name on the check is Tucker Max.

For those who are unfamiliar with Max, he’s the author of the books I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell and Sloppy Seconds: The Tucker Max Leftovers, which chronicle his supposedly real-life escapades of drunken debauchery and sexual conquests. Though the books have earned him a fortune and a huge fan following, they’ve also (unsurprisingly) earned him a reputation as a cad.

But in a recent Forbes profile, Max claimed he had changed his ways and he wasn’t the callous miscreant he once depicted. And what better way to drive home the image of a reformed bad boy than a huge donation to a women’s organization? Tucker could be a hero for a female cause! Well, that’s how Max’s brand strategist Ryan Holiday, who suggested the Planned Parenthood donation, thought such a move would be perceived. (For his part, Max originally came to Holiday looking for a way to relieve a “huge tax burden” and “promote [his] new book at the same time.” Helping women wasn’t mentioned as a top priority.)

Except for one small problem: Planned Parenthood wasn’t up for the deal. After some reported initial excitement and a scheduled meeting with Max, the organization informed him that they wouldn’t be able to take his donation as they were “concerned about the perception of [his] writing.”

Cue the backlash. Holiday took to Forbes once more to slam the organization for turning down the money and ignoring Max’s “good intentions.” And Max, taking umbrage for being refused, wrote on his blog that Planned Parenthood denied him because they “were worried more about other people’s perceptions of the donation than helping women.”

The fact that Max and Holiday can’t recognize why Planned Parenthood would turn down the donation suggests they don’t know much about the organization in the first place. (If, in fact, their “outrage” isn’t a mere publicity stunt.)

First of all, it’s doubtful that Max is doing this solely out of a genuine desire to help women. Again, his strategist has said that the idea originated because Max wanted a tax refund and some good press. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but it’s worth mentioning that Max has previously made disparaging remarks about the organization on his Twitter feed (though the tweets have since been deleted). That’s not a deal-breaker, because not every person who’s donated to charity did it purely out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s still suspicious, though, especially when compounded with the fact that, in exchange for his donation, Max wanted a clinic named after him because he found the idea “funny”.

Offensive as that might be, it doesn’t get to the heart of Planned Parenthood’s rejection of the check. Neither does Max’s suggestion that the group refused the money because of what Max calls “elitism” that led them to believe “that a CLOSED clinic is better than one with [Max's] name on it.” It’s quite obvious that Planned Parenthood simply weighed the pros and cons. The organization wasn’t choosing between one closed clinic and a Tucker Max clinic. It was choosing between no clinics and a Tucker Max clinic.

While Holiday writes that the donation would have been a case of “a win-win-win-win situation. Cut a check, keep a clinic open,” it quite obviously wasn’t that simple for the beleaguered organization. As Jill Filipovic points out at Feministe, “There are entire organizations and large numbers of politicians who have made it their mission to destroy Planned Parenthood. PP can’t afford to take unnecessary risks. Unnecessary risks can mean that the organization ceases to exist. That impedes their mission a hell of a lot more than not having an additional $500,000.”

For an organization that is constantly under attack from a right-wing base with a heavy religious following, accepted support from a man whose reputation is so incompatible with both Planned Parenthood and the GOP’s supposed values is nothing if not a political liability. Remember, this is the man who wants his name on a health clinic that provides abortions, among other services, because it would be funny. Associating themselves with Max would have all but guarantee that Planned Parenthood would face political backlash of some sort. It may be sad that an organization dedicated to providing women’s health services has to turn down a hefty donation in order to play political ball, but that’s the type of game that’s currently being played in the U.S.

And while Max seems to be taking this quite personally — he says he’s over the incident which happened last August, though both he and Holiday are only now writing about it — in reality, PP isn’t anti-Tucker. They’re pro-Planned Parenthood, and are making moves in their own self-interest as an organization. You’d think of all people, Tucker Max would at least understand that.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/05/...#ixzz1rFE3wb3t

[Kobi]

Dear Doug Morris, CEO of Sony Music Entertainment:

As an activist supporting the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, I would like to register my concerns about the film "October Baby" which is being distributed by Provident Films, a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment. I am deeply troubled by the connection between "October Baby" and anti-choice organizations that deceive women. Most importantly, it's disconcerting that your marketing team promotes this film as a coming-of-age story without a political agenda. Moviegoers shouldn't be deceived in this way, especially if proceeds of the film are going to groups that mislead women.

Jon Erwin, the co-writer and producer of "October Baby," told The New York Times that he "didn't see [the movie] as a political issue." However, last fall, the directors held advance screenings of the film to build support for a ballot measure in Mississippi that would have banned abortion and many common forms of birth control. Given this link, it is disingenuous for the filmmaker to claim there is no political motivation related to the movie.

In addition to this political activity, the makers are giving 10 percent of the film's proceeds to a fund benefiting anti-choice "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs). Anti-choice groups created CPCs to look like comprehensive health clinics, but many do not provide women with accurate pregnancy-related information. Investigations by NARAL Pro-Choice America's state affiliates have revealed again and again that many CPCs intentionally misinform and mislead women. In fact, some CPCs subject women seeking objective health-care information to lectures and force them to watch anti-abortion films, slide shows, and photographs. Some even refuse to provide information about or referrals for birth control. For example, a CPC in Virginia falsely told a woman that, "Abortion increases your risk of breast cancer by 100%" [Crisis Pregnancy Centers Revealed, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Foundation].

It is profoundly concerning that a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment would be associated with funding organizations that deliberately mislead women as it markets "October Baby." Moviegoers deserve to know where their ticket money is going and to get the facts about the movie's affiliation with the anti-choice movement.

As you can see, this subject is complex. I urge you to meet with Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, to review additional examples of why CPCs are dangerous to women.

--------

To sign the letter of support, visit the NARAL website: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/index.html

[Okiebug61]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04...-memorial-day/

[Toughy]

Some might say this article belongs in a different thread, however I think there is a correlation.

http://start.toshiba.com/news/recomm...7bb2e3c9fb36be

Most US States Are Ignoring The World's Fastest Growing Criminal Enterprise

Eric Goldschein
February 3, 2012

Business Insider

Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world—but you wouldn't know it based on the laws in most U.S. states.

By CIA estimates, there are 45,000-50,000 victims of sex slavery and trafficking each year in the U.S. alone.

City and state involvement are seen as critical in stopping the crime, around half of which is organized by local pimps, according to a study several years ago by the Justice Department.

Yet despite a call to action by the Department of Defense, and President Obama naming January "National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month," most states remain woefully behind in their response to the problem. <snip>

and this outlines state laws:

http://www.sharedhope.org/WhatWeDo/B...iative.aspx#nv

[Kobi]

“‘Arrest Grandma’ Act Would Insert Government into Difficult Family Decisions”


We all know families that have experienced difficult situations.

When a young woman faces an unintended pregnancy, she will have to make one of the most difficult and personal decisions of her life. Fortunately, the majority of young women do turn to their parents for support during these tough times.

But what about young women who aren’t able to turn to their parents? Some teens come from homes where there’s abuse or violence.

It’s important that a young woman in this situation be able to turn to another responsible adult for support—say, a loving grandparent, close aunt, or trusted clergy member.

The last thing anyone—whether pro-choice or not—should want is a young woman being forced to make this decision alone, with no support at all. Above all, our communities’ first priority should be to keep our teens safe, not isolated and scared.

That’s why a bill moving through the U.S. House of Representatives is so deeply troubling.

The bill’s backers call it the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). We call it the “Arrest Grandma” Act because of what it would do.

The “Arrest Grandma” Act would make it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent—such as a loving grandmother, aunt, or clergy member—to accompany a young woman to another state for abortion care. It also would force doctors to learn and enforce 9 other states’ parental-involvement laws—under the threat of fines and prison sentences.

Is it really the role of government to inject itself into difficult family situations? I don’t think so.

Last month, the Very Rev. Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale spoke out against the bill in a House committee hearing.

She told the story of one young woman who came from a home where she feared abuse and was pregnant as the result of rape. The young woman chose to seek abortion care, but was unable to turn to her parents for support. Rev. Ragsdale was there to offer counsel and support so that she would not have to face her decision alone.

Under the “Arrest Grandma” Act, young women in similar situations could find themselves unable to turn to any trusted adult.

“Please don’t outlaw the very help we want our children to have,” Rev. Ragsdale pleaded.

We all care about young women’s wellbeing and safety. Think of your daughters, sisters, friends, or neighbors. If a young woman in your life was desperate for your help, you wouldn’t turn her away.

Government has no business forcing itself into difficult family decisions. Threatening caring grandmothers and clergy members with jail time does nothing to help young women in dire situations. It only puts their health and safety in further danger. And that’s exactly what the “Arrest Grandma” Act would do.

Our elected representatives should stop pushing this dangerous bill. Please contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose this bill.

http://blog.latinovations.com/2012/0...ily-decisions/

[Apocalipstic]

Is is frightening how quickly the rights of women are being eroded.

It makes me relieved not to have a uterus.

[Kobi]

CONCORD, N.H.—Activist Ellen Kolb remembers epic losses in the New Hampshire House over the past three decades in trying to win limits on abortions for adults, but this year she has not one, but five major reasons to celebrate.

This year for the first time, the New Hampshire chamber -- known for its staunch defense of abortion rights over the decades -- has passed bills that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, ban so- called "partial-birth" abortions, and require a 24-hour waiting period for abortions. Lawmakers also banned government funding to any health provider performing elective abortions and allowed employers to not provide contraceptive coverage such as the morning-after pill, considered by some to be chemical abortion because it ends a possible pregnancy.

The House also has passed bills to study how to collect abortion statistics and to give judges more time to rule in cases where pregnant minors don't want to notify their parents before getting an abortion. Another bill would include the death of a fetus in the murder statutes.

Kolb, legislative affairs director of Cornerstone Action, says while persistence
paid off, she doesn't expect all the bills to survive the Senate or a possible gubernatorial veto. Most of the bills did not pass the House with enough support to ensure a veto override.

The voting balance could shift in the next election just as it shifted in her favor in 2010.

"If it is something very close in votes, it is something that can go back and forth," she said.

New Hampshire's House has thwarted dozens of efforts to pass similar legislation since Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. New Hampshire had no laws regulating abortion on its books from 1997 to 2003 after abortion rights supporters succeeded in repealing three 1848 criminal abortion laws under then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, and a more moderate Republican Legislature. The state has consistently had agency rules in place banning most publicly funded abortions for poor women.

The one exception made by the House over the years was enactment -- under a Republican governor and Legislature -- of a parental notification law for minors in 2003. The measure was never implemented and was later repealed by Democrats.

Republicans overrode Democratic Gov. John Lynch's veto of a similar notification law last year and it took effect in January. Lynch, who supports abortion rights, has not said if he would veto the latest bills.

Kolb remembers the first time the Legislature passed a bill to repeal the 1848 criminal abortion laws under former Republican Gov. Judd Gregg, who had been unclear on his position. Gregg vetoed bills to repeal the laws in 1989, 1990 and 1992.

"That was a shock to me," Kolb said.

Gregg also vetoed legislation in 1990 to allow abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision. That fight was so emotional that one of the sponsors was told she no longer was welcome at the church where she was baptized and married.

The vetoes did not stop a prominent Republican state representative and member of the National Abortion Rights Action League's national board from endorsing Gregg's re-election over a pro-abortion rights Democrat.

Laura Thibault, interim executive director of the local NARAL Pro-Choice America group, believes women's rights were not as threatened then as they are now. She said what has happened this year caught many by surprise.

"I think for a lot of people, the issue of reproductive rights is one they think is safe," she said.

At a Senate hearing Thursday on four of the bills, 83-year-old former state Rep. Hilda Sokol pleaded with senators not to return to a time of back-alley abortions.

"After 50 years of having had the right to make decisions about having children, I'm disturbed at the backlash," she said.

Abortion-rights activists credit Republican House Speaker William O'Brien with the turnaround in the House by helping elect enough conservative Republicans opposed to abortion. Usually a speaker only votes to change the outcome of a bill, but O'Brien has voted for abortion bills from the speaker's podium. His efforts also led to passage of the bill to block funding to hospitals and other health providers offering elective abortions despite a House committee's recommendation that it be killed.

O'Brien, who calls abortion repugnant, declined a request for an interview on the issue.

"This group of Republicans ran on jobs and the economy and as we have seen on their focus on a social agenda, they really swindled the voters. I think there are some people out there happy with it but that is a small group," said House Democratic Leader Terie Norelli, a former NARAL board member.

Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said state polls have shown for years that New Hampshire has consistently supported abortion rights. While Smith believes pocketbook issues will be the issue voters look to in making candidate decisions in November, Democrats could use the House's action to fire up supporters.

Abortion-rights activists hope to capitalize on rising anger among women who feel their rights are being threatened, said Jennifer Frizzell, senior policy adviser for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Her organization has gotten perhaps 5,000 calls from people offering to help over the past six months, she said.

"I think women up and down the ballot will determine the outcome of the election (in 2012)," she said.

At Thursday's hearing, Sokol, part of a new group called Seniors Defending Women's Health, gave the Senate committee a petition signed by 100 people opposing the bills.

And Lisa Gerrish, a consultant from Bow, says she felt tricked by the House over how it presented the bills as improvements to women's health instead of limiting their rights. She has begun working against their passage instead of just complaining and said it's time for women to be angry "and let people
know."

Kolb says her side is ready and remains committed to keep fighting for a society where abortion is unthinkable.

"This is not going away anytime soon," she said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new...ons/?page=full

[Kobi]

It could be the latest front in the so-called war on women.

On Tuesday, the Tennessee state senate passed legislation that extends murder and assault laws to cover the early stages of pregnancy: before six weeks, when the fetus is still technically considered an embryo. Supporters say the measure is to ensure that additional charges can be brought against someone who harms a pregnant woman.

But some worry that the law lays a legal foundation that could, if extended to its logical conclusion, eventually be used to ban abortion — and, as highlighted in the New York Times Magazine this week, would considerably limit the rights of women in the process.

Criminal charges are now being brought against women in Alabama for “chemical endangerment of a child” which has been utilized to penalize mothers who use drugs during their pregnancy and has a mandatory sentence of 10 years to life (if the baby dies). Since the 2006 enactment of the statute, 60 new mothers in the state have been prosecuted. But now, groups like Planned Parenthood, the A.C.L.U. and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are taking an interest in whether the law sets a dangerous precedent.

Originally enacted to protect children from meth labs, the law prohibits a “responsible person” from:

“exposing a child to an environment in which he or she…knowingly, recklessly or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance or drug paraphernalia.”

But using the law to target pregnant women for drug use is criminalizing a health concern, an issue that was also argued this week before British legislators by comedian Russell Brand.

As Dr. Deborah Frank, a pediatrician and director of Boston Medical Center’s Grow Clinic for Children, said to the Times magazine, “to simplify a complex medical and psychological issue into a criminal issue is really just like using a hammer to play the piano.” The law could scare pregnant drug users away from getting treatment for their addiction and perhaps push them to have abortions, rather than receive severe legal punishment for their use.

Although the chemical-endangerment law seems unique to Alabama, the law would lend considerable support to the “fetal personhood” argument. Keith Mason, founder of Personhood USA, which seeks to establish a fetus’s right to live as equal to that of the mother’s, told the Times that personhood is the “rallying point” for the anti-abortion movement because it is the “crux of the issue.” Attempts to define fetuses as persons have failed in any state in which they have been introduced, but Mason believes the chemical-endangerment law, and laws like it, could get the anti-abortion movement where it wants to go.

But Emma Ketteringham, the director of legal advocacy at the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, said that applying the chemical-endangerment law to pregnant women violates constitutional guarantees of liberty, privacy, equality, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. “It starts with the use of an illegal drug, but what happens as a consequence of that precedent is that everything a women does whiles she’s pregnant becomes subject to state regulation,” she said, adding that the chemical-endangerment law is essentially a “personhood measure in disguise.”

“We can value the unborn as a matter of religion, ethics, or experience,” Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told the Times. “But we can’t do that as a matter of law, and still value pregnant women.”



Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/26/...#ixzz1tDGH7sWl

[Kobi]

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill banning abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving money through the state, her office said in a statement.

The Republican-backed Whole Woman's Health Funding Priority Act cuts off funding for family planning and health services delivered by Planned Parenthood clinics and other organizations offering abortions.

"By signing this measure into law I stand with the majority of Americans who oppose the use of taxpayer funds for abortion," Brewer said in a statement.

Arizona joins six other states with similar laws, officials said. But three of those states -- Indiana, Kansas and North Carolina -- are facing legal challenges.

Arizona does not provide tax dollars for abortion, but backers said the law is needed to make sure that no indirect monies are funneled to organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide abortion and other health services. There were no estimates of how much money is involved.

But officials at Planned Parenthood Arizona, the state's largest abortion provider, said the law means that thousands of women in the state may now go without life-saving cancer screenings, birth control and basic health care.

"We are most concerned about the women and men who could be forced to go without health care as a result of this bill," Bryan Howard, Planned Parenthood Arizona's president and CEO, said in a prepared statement.

"We remain committed to providing Arizona communities with the professional, nonjudgmental and confidential health care they have relied on for 78 years," Howard said.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List called the bill a "major victory" in its fight to bar funding of abortion providers.

"Abortion-centered businesses like Planned Parenthood do not need or deserve taxpayer dollars," Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs for the organization, said in a written statement.

While Planned Parenthood suffered a setback in Arizona, it won a temporary battle in court on Friday with Texas. A federal appeals court ruled that the organization could participate in a health program for low-income women in Texas, despite a new state rule there that bans affiliates of abortion providers.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/arizona-ban...032512974.html

[Reader]

Rachel Maddow covers this topic almost every night on her show.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/

http://www.rachelmaddow.com/


Rachel Maddow is the host of “The Rachel Maddow Show” which airs on MSNBC at 9:00 pm Eastern, Monday through Friday, and is rebroadcast at midnight Eastern.

[Kobi]

From The Center For Reproductive Rights today:

Moments ago, we received the thrilling news that Oklahoma’s law banning medication abortion—a safe, non-surgical option used by more than 1.4 million U.S. women—has been permanently blocked.

Judge Donald Worthington’s decision is groundbreaking. He ruled that the bill’s restrictions are “so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that [the bill] can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those women who do.”

Judge Worthington’s words send a clear message to our opponents:
Reproductive choice is a fundamental right under the Oklahoma Constitution.

Today’s ruling is simply unprecedented. For the first time ever, a court recognized that the Oklahoma Constitution protects a woman’s right to abortion. This ruling reaffirms that the Legislature can’t use women’s health to advance a radical anti-choice agenda.

The court made it clear what you and I already know: This law was never about protecting women. It was about banning safe and effective methods of terminating a pregnancy, and making it impossible for women to exercise the full range of their constitutionally protected rights.

Our victory today sends a strong message to anti-choice legislators in Oklahoma—and all across the country—that their disingenuous tactics for restricting access to abortion will not stand.

Anti-choice organizations have targeted Oklahoma as a testing ground for their most extreme tactics—and we’ve been beating back one after another. Just last month, the Center defeated the state’s attempt at a so-called “personhood” ballot initiative that would have given every fertilized egg the full legal rights of a person.

Even with these triumphs, we know that anti-choice zealots won’t stop attacking our rights. We remain vigilant and ready to fight back—but today’s victory is ours to celebrate.

[Kobi]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responded Thursday to a question about Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) not being able to testify at a hearing about restrictions on abortions in D.C., saying that "it's wrong."

Norton asked to testify in front of a hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution which is considering legislation that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy in the District.

The Subcommittee, which is chaired by notoriously anti-abortion Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), denied her request to testify at the 4 p.m. hearing. Norton said she will offer written testimony instead.

"We have a member of Congress who wants to come in and talk about her district, I can't even imagine a situation where someone else would be denied that opportunity and I think it's wrong," Pelosi said. "And I think it's not civil and if we don't raise the level of civility around here it just further alienates the public."

Pelosi continued:

"What are they afraid of? The facts? The impact on the District of Columbia? The persuasiveness of the Congresswoman to represent her people? ... They have prevented her from having a vote on the floor, now they don't want her to have a voice in a committee on a subject of concern to her district, I think it's wrong."

Norton said she will hold a 2:30 p.m. press conference, where she will be joined by Professor Christy Zink, a District resident who had an abortion at 21 weeks after doctors found severe brain abnormalities in the fetus; Mayor Vincent Gray; Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution; and National Abortion Federation President Vicki Saporta.

Norton provided the written testimony she will present below:

What matters in the submission of this testimony is what H.R. 3803 and this subcommittee are attempting to do to the citizens I represent, and, therefore, I submit this testimony as part of my responsibility to them, and ask that it be included in the record of today’s hearing. However, my constituents would also count on me to note for the record the subcommittee’s callous disregard of long-standing congressional courtesy in denying my request to testify, in addition to the invited witnesses, particularly considering that the subject matter under consideration affects only my district. Unlike every member of this subcommittee, I am elected by, and am accountable to, the residents of the District of Columbia.

This is the second time in the 112th Congress that the majority has focused exclusively on my district while denying my request to testify. How very easy it is for the majority to gang up on the District of Columbia after supporting the continuing denial of its tax-paying citizens to representation in the House and Senate. How irresistible it has been to pick on the District of Columbia and its citizens with not one but two bills that the majority dares not try to apply to all citizens of the United States. The lack of courage of the majority’s convictions is breathtaking. Common courtesy and the congressional tradition of comity and respect demand that the Member elected to speak for the only Americans affected by a bill be allowed to speak for them, regardless of other witnesses who may speak to the underlying issue. Last year, I was denied to speak on H.R. 3, a bill that would permanently prohibit only one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, from spending its local funds on abortions for low-income women. Today it is H.R. 3803, which would bar the women of only one district, the District of Columbia, from having abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Fortunately, the majority has not yet found a way to completely silence our residents. I thank the minority for inviting Professor Christy Zink, who has agreed to speak for us, as few others could, as a mother whose tragic experience compelled an abortion after 20 weeks into her pregnancy.

Some are debating whether Republicans have been engaging in a “war on women” in our country. What is not debatable is the Republican fixation on the women of the District of Columbia. The Republican majority, which was elected on a promise of jobs and devolving power to state and local governments, brought the federal government (and with it, the District of Columbia government) to within an hour of shutting down in April 2011, and relented only after it succeeded in re-imposing an undemocratic rider on a spending bill that prohibits the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women. Although the abortion rider remains in place today, it has not satisfied the apparently insatiable hunger of Republicans to expand the reach of the federal government into local affairs. Today, they are moving from interfering with the decisions of low-income women in the District of Columbia, to attacking every woman in the District of Columbia.

H.R. 3803 is unprincipled twice over. It is the first bill ever introduced in Congress that would deny constitutional rights to the citizens of only one jurisdiction in the United States, and it is the first bill ever introduced in Congress that would ban abortions after twenty weeks of pregnancy. Republicans claim that the bill does not usurp local authority because Congress has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. However, that argument has been unavailing for 39 years, since Congress gave up that power over the District of Columbia, except for a small number of enumerated exceptions, with passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973. The right to reproductive choice was not among those exceptions.

The supporters of H.R. 3803 surely know that it is unconstitutional on two counts. The bill violates the reproductive rights spelled out in Roe v. Wade, as well as the 14th Amendment right to equal treatment under the law by intentionally discriminating against women who live in the nation’s capital. D.C. residents are used to Members piling on, but we will never hesitate to fight back, especially when Members have the audacity to try to place our citizens outside the protections of the U.S. Constitution, as H.R. 3803 does. As the Supreme Court said in Callan v. Wilson, “There is nothing in the history of the Constitution or of the original amendments to justify the assertion that the people of th[e] District [of Columbia] may be lawfully deprived of the benefit of any of the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and property.”

Why, then, a hearing today on a bill that violates the right to reproductive freedom, equal protection, and federalism all at once? The answers are inescapable. Republicans do not dare take on the women of this country who have voting Members of the House and Senate with a post-20-week ban on abortions. Instead, the majority has chosen a cheap and cynical way to make its ideological point during an election year. With last year’s civil disobedience, D.C. residents and officials showed that we will never accept second-class treatment of our city. Today we want this subcommittee to know that we will never accept second-class treatment of our citizens, either.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/f...151895255.html

[Kobi]

Measure 3 will add the following to the North Dakota Constitution:

Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

----

The North Dakota Women’s Network serves as a catalyst for improving the lives of women. Our organization passed a resolution to stand against Measure 3 for the core reasons our mission implies.

The language of the measure will create loopholes due to the lack of protection for individuals’ civil rights.

What does this mean? It means people who break a law or discriminate against another person have a protected defense and that the state must prove (in court) otherwise.

If Measure 3 passes, it could allow a person to take advantage and use personal religious beliefs to claim the right to break important laws that are meant to protect all of us, like laws against abuse and discrimination.

For example, an employer could use religious beliefs to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried.

Let’s think this through. We now have a single mother unemployed and struggling to care for the welfare of her family. Her employer would have a protected defense for his action and a judge would have to determine otherwise.

Supporters of Measure 3 claim that concerns about abuse and discrimination aren’t warranted because the government has a compelling interest to protect victims in those situations. However, Measure 3 would mean the government would have to prove its case each and every time someone takes advantage of the law — giving those people the upper hand while taxpayers foot the bill for endless litigation. Most importantly, it would delay the state’s ability to protect women and children.

Measure 3 is worded very differently than laws in other states intended to protect religious freedom; it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

The truth is, Measure 3 could lead to endless litigation and serious, even harmful, consequences for North Dakotans.



Read more: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opin...#ixzz1veUDjxHx

-------------

As we head into the election season, there are many daunting initiatives coming our way in many states. One election that is speeding our way is in North Dakota on June 12th, and one particularly frightening Measure being voted on in the state is the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment.

Although religious freedom is already thoroughly covered in our United States Constitution, the Catholic Conference and North Dakota Family Alliance has proposed a vague and extreme measure to be added to the state constitution.

The North Dakota Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state’s Catholic bishops, led a petition drive that collected signatures to put the plan before the voters. Also spearheading this measure is the North Dakota Family Alliance, the state’s leading Religious Right group and local affiliate of the James Dobson-founded Focus on the Family.

Measure Three states that a person has “the right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief” and includes “indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

If this state constitutional amendment were to pass, it could have far reaching and possibly unintended consequences. Last week North Dakotans against Measure Three launched its website and new campaign to fight this harmful measure. On the new website, they give three reasons to vote against Measure 3:

1. Measure Three is not needed. Religious rights and freedom were the foundation of the United States Constitution and is protected by the First Amendment. Measure Three would put individuals’ beliefs above the common good of all North Dakotans.

2. Measure Three would waste resources. It is so poorly written and vague that it will open the door to endless legal problems and litigation, clogging the courts and costing tax payers money.

3. Measure Three would mean unintended consequences. If anyone can claim religious liberty, what is to stop those who will take advantage of such an Amendment to the extreme in matters such as domestic violence if their religion requires a man disciplining his wife? Other potential consequences of this Measure are vast, but could include circumstances such as denying numerous forms of healthcare and services and discriminating against individuals and groups.

Of course, women’s rights advocates including Feminist Majority Foundation worry about the effects of such an Amendment on women and young people. The first services that may be denied to North Dakota women and girls based on “religious liberty” could be reproductive health care and family planning. In a sparsely populated state like North Dakota, where would a student turn if their local pharmacies and health centers refuse to provide birth control or Plan B?

So what can you do?

Feminist Majority Foundation will be working with our student groups in North Dakota to get the word out on campuses. We need all the help we can get to alert voters of the harmful consequences of Measure Three and get them out to vote. If you are from North Dakota or know folks interested in working to defeat Measure Three, please contact me at sshanks@feminist.org so we can connect you with those working on the ground. If you are not in the state, TELL EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYONE in North Dakota about the Measure, and get them out to vote! We will have more volunteer opportunities and updates as the elections approach, but make sure you are getting the word out! We must stop an amendment that may result in taking away women’s rights.

http://feministcampus.org/blog/index...-on-june-12th/

[Kobi]

After Saying ‘Vagina,’ a Woman Legislator is Banned From Speaking on House Floor....

Two women representatives were indefinitely barred from speaking during Michigan House debates yesterday by Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas during one debate about a highly contentious omnibus abortion bill.

One of the offenders, State Representative Barb Byrum (D), was barred for shouting at the presiding officer after he refused to give her the floor, despite her repeated requests to speak. The other barred representative, Lisa Brown (D), suspects that she is being punished for using the word “vagina.” At the end of an impassioned speech against the measure in question—which, among other provisions, bans all abortions after 20 weeks, without exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother—Brown said “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no.’” (See the video above for full remarks and reactions.)

Stamas hasn’t said what specifically offended him — only that the women did not maintain decorum on the floor — but Brown and her supporters argue that the majority leader was put off by her use of an “anatomically correct word.”

“Apparently, “vagina” is another v-word that Must Not Be Named. Like Voldemort,” Brown told Jezebel.com’s Gloria Erin Ryan.

Michigan Radio reports that “this is the first time in memory that lawmakers have been formally barred from participating in floor debates.”



Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/15/...#ixzz1xwoKkpaf

[Kobi]

From NARAL:

The men featured at the all-male panel attacking birth control are back. Starting Thursday for two weeks, the anti-choice United States Conference on Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is organizing nationwide rallies as part of its “Fortnight for Freedom.”

There’s no question what the bishops hope to achieve with these rallies: pressure Congress to back down on requiring insurance companies to cover contraception without a copay.

During the “Fortnight for Freedom,” the bishops could send tens if not hundreds of thousands of messages to Congress. But that’s not the only way they are targeting birth control.

*They already organized more than 100 demonstrations across the country, featuring extreme anti-choice speakers like Rep. Michele Bachmann.

*The bishops have championed a flurry of lawsuits challenging the contraceptive-coverage policy from religiously affiliated institutions.

*The USCCB’s North Dakota affiliate backed Measure 3, a ballot initiative that, under the guise of religious freedom, would have allowed employers who oppose contraception to deny such coverage to their employees. Fortunately, North Dakota voters rejected Measure 3 by a wide margin last week.

These next two weeks will be critical. We can’t allow the bishops to mobilize without a challenge – but it’s going to take our massive people power to counter their millions of dollars.
---------

Time to keep in touch with your Congresspeople and make your views known.

Now, if you really want to get sick....read the following article which calls the HHS mandate one more momentous step in the "repaganization of the West".


---------


Preparing for a Fortnight for Freedom: A Short History Lesson

The American bishops have declared a “Fortnight for Freedom,” running the 14 days from June 21 (the Vigil of the Feast of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More) to July 4, Independence Day. “Culminating on Independence Day,” the bishops explain, “this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.”

Well said. In that same spirit, here is a little history lesson to help prepare us for a Fortnight for Freedom.

First, current history. The Fortnight for Freedom was declared because President Obama is trying to force Catholic institutions, through a Health and Human Services mandate, to provide contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization through their insurance coverage.

And now for a little ancient history to put current events into the widest possible context. To truly see what’s at stake with Obama’s HHS mandate, you must go all the way back to ancient Rome, to the pagan empire into which Christianity was born.

We might think of contraception as something new, a modern thing, just as we think abortion was rare before Roe v. Wade. But that is historically as inaccurate as one could possibly get. The truth is this: contraception, abortion, and infanticide were widely practiced and entirely acceptable in all ancient cultures, including Rome. The acceptability was the result of attitudes toward sexuality. “In antiquity,” historian John Riddle notes, “the evidence suggests, sexual restraint was largely ignored; pagan religion normally did not attempt to regulate sexual activity. Free males could do almost anything sexually, even if they had to resort to slaves, with no moral or societal consequences to themselves.”

Elevating the goal of sexual satisfaction meant that babies were often considered unwanted side effects. Most ancient pagans saw nothing wrong with stopping babies from happening, and used a variety of contraceptive and abortifacient concoctions, ingested or applied, to accomplish this—everything from pomegranate peels, giant fennel, acacia gum, crushed juniper berries, cabbage flowers, date palm, rue, and myrrh, to crocodile dung. If all that failed, they had back-up plans to induce something like a modern-day abortion (hot baths, vigorous exercise, horseback riding, carrying heavy loads, bleeding, punching the stomach, more poisons). The final back-up was infanticide, usually by exposure.

The earliest Christians rejected the whole spectrum, from contraception to infanticide—and this is obviously an essential point for understanding the historical importance of the current standoff between Obama’s HHS and the Catholic bishops. We find their explicit rejection in the Didache, the first-century AD catechetical manual used in the house churches and directed at converts coming, not through Judaism, but from among the pagans.

Pagan converts were confronted with a list of commands in the Didache, including, “You will not have illicit sex” (ou porneuseis) and, “You will not murder offspring by means of abortion [and] you will not kill one having been born [i.e., infanticide].” The list also includes, “You will not make potions” (ou pharmakeuseis), a prohibition against the wide-scale use among pagans of potions intended as contraceptives and abortifacients.

St. Paul’s list of sins of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-20 is very interesting in this regard. The list begins with fornication or illicit sex (porneia), impurity, sensuality or lewdness, and idolatry, and then lists what is often translated as sorcery (pharmakeia). Sorcery and potion-making went together in the ancient world, and we cannot exclude the possibility that St. Paul (given the duplication of pharmakeia in the Didache) was intending to include makers of contraceptives and abortifacients.

Such prohibitions would have been more familiar to Jews than Roman pagans, but even the Jews, it seems, were not dead-set against the use of contraception. According to John Riddle, “While there is no mention of intentional abortion [via abortifacients] or contraception in the Old Testament, both practices are in the Talmud, Tosefta, and Mishnah.” More accurately, “rabbinic opinion was divided,” and even those that affirmed the use of contraception and abortifacients did so only under restricted conditions.

As with the command against adultery, the Christians intensified the Jewish prohibitions, and condemned all use of contraceptives and abortifacients, thereby setting themselves at the most complete odds with the accepted Roman pagan sexual practices. That is a very important point to make in regard to the HHS mandate: it means that Christianity alone is the historical cause of the moral prohibition against contraceptives and abortifacients.

But history attests not just this single, early prohibition. Following the lead of the Didache, we find contraception and abortion condemned by a string of eminent early churchmen: Athenagoras (c. 133-190), Clement (c. 150-215), Marcus Minucius Felix (c. 150-270), Jerome (c. 347-420), and John Chrysostom (347-407).

This condemnation continued as pagan Rome crumbled and Christendom emerged from its ruins. Bishop Caesarius of Arles condemned contraception and abortifacients in the early sixth century AD, and Abbot Regino, writing from Lorraine about 830 AD, asserted that if someone does something to stop childbearing, such as ingesting some potion so that no generation or conception can take place, “let it be held as homicide.” Ivo, bishop of Chartres from 1090 to 1115, brought these prohibitions against contraception, abortifacients, and abortion together, and his account was taken up by Peter Lombard in his Sentences (c. 1096-1164), which in turn was incorporated by Gratian in the 12th century into the Church’s canon law. Canon law formed the Church’s unified, authoritative approach to these issues, and this allowed church moral doctrine to influence and define the civil law of the West.

There is no other historical source for the laws against abortion that were struck down with a single blow by Roe v. Wade in 1972, and no other source for the laws against contraception that were struck down with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. And finally, there is no other source of the current antagonism created by the HHS mandate, demanding that that the Church violate its two-millennium-old condemnation of contraceptives and abortifacients.

When we put the HHS mandate into the larger historical framework, we realize something quite ominous about what’s really at stake. The HHS mandate is just one more momentous battle in the long struggle between Christians and pagans. For we in the West have been, for some time, undergoing what could quite accurately be called “repaganization.”

Repaganization? Yes. Over the last two centuries, our culture has become increasingly secularized. The Christian-based understanding of sexual purity that for so long had formed Western society has been largely abandoned by a kind of secular hedonism, with quite predictable effects. The release of sexual desire from Christian-based moral restrictions in the 19th and 20th century led immediately to the desire for contraception, abortion, and, as we’re seeing more and more, infanticide. As a result, Christians now find themselves in much the same situation as they were in ancient, pagan Rome: surrounded by an antagonistic, sexually-saturated pagan culture, demanding contraceptives, abortifacients, direct abortion, and infanticide to remove the unwanted “side-effects” of sexual libertinism. Our secularism looks suspiciously like ancient paganism.

The HHS mandate is a throwing down of the gauntlet by the new pagans. At issue is whether the enormous moral influence of Christianity, and Christianity itself, will be erased from history—that is, whether the seamless spectrum of “reproductive rights” cherished in ancient, pagan Rome will be re-imposed by the secular state.

The HHS mandate is not like Roe v Wade, which used raw judicial power to demand full access to the abortion-infanticide aspect of the pagan spectrum for those who desire it. It is not like Griswold, which used just as raw judicial power to remove the Christian hold on law, so that contraception would be freely available for those who desired it. It is the imperial state demanding that the Catholic Church must pick up the dagger and turn it against itself, and act against its own moral law, just as the ancient, pagan emperors demanded that, in order to save their lives, Christians must curse Christ, throw the Scriptures in the fire, and offer ritual sacrifice to the divinized emperor and the Roman gods.

With the HHS mandate, the secular state is moving from, “Christians, do what you like among yourselves, but don’t impose your moral views on us,” to, “Christians, you must now do what we like—or else.”

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...ry_lesson.aspx

[DMW]

Quick way to tell your senators and house representatives not to block
abortion access for raped, female, soldiers who fight for our democracy...
democracy? equality and justice for all?

http://www.credoaction.com/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-rape-abortion
Stop the House from blocking abortion access for raped soldiers.

This is shocking, even for our U.S. Congress.

If a female employee of the U.S. State Department is raped while serving abroad in Afghanistan, her federal health plan will pay for an abortion should she become pregnant. However if a woman serving abroad as a member of the U.S. military is raped, her military health plan will NOT provide for an abortion if she becomes pregnant as a result of that violent and reprehensible act.

According to a recent report from Mother Jones,1 the Pentagon has an even more drastic policy on access to abortion than the Hyde Amendment which bans the use of federal funds for abortion care unless a woman has been the victim of rape, incest or she could literally die unless she her pregnancy is terminated.

This disparity is so unsettling that the Senate Armed Services Committee recently passed a proposal that would fix this loophole in federal law on a rare bipartisan vote. But the extremists in Congress will almost certainly strip this proposal from the National Defense Authorization Act when it comes up for a vote in the House. The only way we can hope to stop it is with massive public pushback.

Tell Republicans and anti-choice Democrats in the House: Don't block abortion access for raped soldiers

According to Kate Sheppard's report in Mother Jones,2 there are 200,000 women serving on active duty in our military and in 2011 alone there were 471 reported instances of rape. But with the Pentagon itself estimating that only 13.5% of rapes are officially reported, that means around 3,500 service members are raped per year.

Women who are serving on military bases abroad can't simply go to their local Planned Parenthood should they seek an abortion after finding themselves pregnant as a result of rape. And if there hasn't been a formal finding of rape, a rape survivor in the military can't even pay to have the procedure done in the medical facility on base. Many women serving in our armed forces are stationed in foreign countries where safe abortion care is not easily obtained outside our military bases. And it may not be possible or affordable for a raped woman soldier to travel to the United States in order to receive the care she needs. Our policies need to be reformed to ensure that women in the military who have been raped have access to the medical care they need.

As Senator Jean Shaheen who introduced the proposal change to this heinous policy explained to Mother Jones, "Most of the women affected here are enlisted women who are making about $18,000 a year. They're young, they don't have access to a lot of resources. Many of them are overseas."

Tell Republicans and anti-choice Democrats in the House: Don't block abortion access for raped soldiers.

A handful of Republicans in the Senate realized that protecting rape survivors is not a partisan issue and joined Democrats to pass this bill out of committee and work to provide relief to women in our armed services. But their colleagues in the House will not join them in helping to pass this much needed bill unless we force them to take action. We need to tell Republicans as well as anti-choice Democrats in the House (including the so-called Stupak Democrats who voted against women's reproductive health in the Affordable Care Act)3 that we cannot let this policy stand.

CREDO is a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose and we will continue to work for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. But until then, even in our polarized Congress which is packed with anti-choice zealots, there are some lines that Republicans and anti-choice Democrats should be very afraid to cross. This is one of them. We cannot stand by and let women serving in the U.S. military be subjected to a stricter standard for abortion access than the already horribly restrictive Hyde Amendment.

This is one we can win if enough of us speak out. Thank you for taking action.

1 House GOP Blocking Abortion Access for Raped Soldiers, Mother Jones, June 13, 2012.
2ibid.
3Many Previously Pro-Choice Dems Voted for Stupak Amendment, FiveThirtyEight.com, November 9, 2009