The Assault on Womens Sexual and Reproductive Rights

[Kobi]

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Feb 27, 2012 at 10:33 am

When a woman in Alabama seeks an abortion procedure, she already has to sign that her doctor has performed an ultrasound and that she either viewed the ultrasound image or rejected seeing it. But state Sen. Clay Scofield (R) is pushing SB 12, a bill in the Alabama legislature that would mandate the physician “to perform an ultrasound, provide verbal explanation of the ultrasound, and display the images to the pregnant woman before performing an abortion.” The physician could also require the woman to submit to a transvaginal ultrasound — “in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced” — if she or he determines it necessary.

A Senate committee voted 4-1 on Friday to approve the measure, and the state Senate is expected to vote on it early this week. Even though studies have proven that viewing an ultrasound does not lead women to not have abortions, the bill’s sponsor says he hopes it will:

Scofield said he hopes that, if signed into law, his bill will stop some abortions. Though the bill states a woman can look away from the ultrasound image, Scofield wants her to see it.

“So she sees that this is not just a clump of cells as she is told,” he said. “She will see the shape of the infant. And hopefully, she will choose to keep the child.”

The bill wouldn’t require an ultrasound if an abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life, but it does not allow the victims of sexual assault to opt out of viewing the ultrasound.

Last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell backed away from supporting the same measure after almost 1,000 women protested the measure and national media mocked the extreme bill. He explained that he backtracked after the state’s attorney general told him that “these kinds of mandatory invasive requirements might run afoul of Fourth Amendment law.” The Virginia House and a Senate committee have passed the ultrasound bill with substitute language from the governor that would not require women to receive a transvaginal ultrasound.


Update
State Sen. Linda Coleman (D), the sole vote against the bill in committee, told RH Reality Check that it is “a state-sanctioned rape bill.” “You can’t tell me forcing a probe into a woman’s vagina against her consent is anything but rape,” Coleman said.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...ll/?mobile=nc#

[Kobi]

A Democratic lawmaker in Georgia is responding to a Republican-backed effort to prevent women from receiving abortions 20 weeks after fertilization with a tongue-in-cheek measure that seeks to limit men’s health care choices: legislation that “would limit vasectomies only to men who will die or suffer dangerous health problems without one.” “Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies,” said Rep. Yasmin Neal (D) explained. “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”

The anti-abortion bill (HB 954), offered by Rep. Doug McKil­lip (R), “would effectively outlaw abortion 20 weeks after an egg is fertilized, the point where the lawmaker said fetuses can feel pain,” but would allow for exceptions in cases where a pregnancy threatens the life or health of the women. The bill also does not include exemptions for rape or incest and stipulates that doctors “performing abortions without the justifications the bill requires would be subject to a prison sentence of one to 10 years.”

Fourteen states have imposed prohibitions on abortions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24, and 6 of these states ban abortion at 20 weeks on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation — a claim disputed by doctors:

Doctors’ groups and other experts testified during a committee hearing that establishing a 20-week rule could force prospective parents to make a decision on ending pregnancies before having all the information available from genetic tests that can reveal whether a fetus has severe physical problems.

“People could be making decisions on information that is not definitive,” said Dan Wies­man, a certified genetic counselor at Emory Health­care.

The concept of “fetal pain” is widely panned by many in the medical field, with the Journal of the American Medical Association determining that “pain perception probably does not function before the third trimester.” So discredited is the concept of fetal pain that even a Kansas Republican slammed the “false research,” adding “I would be embarrassed to be a state that bases its laws on untruths.”

Under current Georgia law, women can have abortions until 26 weeks after fertilization. Beyond that point, the procedure can only be performed “if three physicians agree that the woman needs it for medical reasons that can include mental health issues.”

“The Republican attack on women’s reproductive rights is unconscionable. What is more deplorable is the hypocrisy of HB 954’s author,” House Democratic Leader Stacey Abrams (D) said. “If we follow his logic, we believe it is the obligation of this General Assembly to assert an equally invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...g-vasectomies/

[Kobi]

Changing course after an unwelcome national uproar, the Virginia Senate adopted a revised bill on Tuesday that still requires doctors to perform an ultrasound on women before they have an abortion, but also says that women cannot be forced to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound.

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,” and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

The furor has already had an effect in other states considering ultrasound mandates, including Alabama and Idaho, with lawmakers seeking to avoid accusations that they are subjecting women to an unwanted, invasive procedure.

In Virginia, the weakened version passed the Republican-led House last week but faced a battle in the Senate, which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. On Tuesday the bill narrowly passed, 21 to 19, with further amendments that will require it to go back to the House for final approval. The Senate vote came after a bitter debate in which Democrats pleaded with the body not to adopt a bill that they said remained — even with the changes — demeaning to women and insulting to doctors.

Senator Ralph Northam, a Democrat and the only physician in the Senate, called it “a tremendous assault on women’s health care and a tremendous insult to physicians.”

The governor, an anti-abortion Republican who is said to have national political aspirations, is expected to sign the bill into law. Virginia would become the eighth state to require that women have ultrasounds before abortions and also be “offered” descriptions of the fetus. Anti-abortion advocates hope these mandates will persuade some women not to go through with an abortion, but many doctors and advocates for abortion rights describe them as an intrusive violation of doctor-patient relations.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

The choice of scanning techniques should “be the choice of the mother,” the sponsor, Senator Clay Scofield, a Republican, said in a television interview on Monday in Huntsville. “If she does not want a vaginal transducer she does not have to have it.”

In Idaho, senators introducing a similar ultrasound bill added language on Monday requiring use of “whichever method the physician and patient agree is best under the circumstances.”

The choice is between vaginal ultrasounds, which involve placing a probe inside the body, or the more familiar abdominal procedure, done externally. Through most of the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, medical experts say, only the invasive procedure can provide a clear image of the tiny fetus or an audible record of the heartbeat, and most abortions occur within this period.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

In Alabama, the Virginia furor fanned new controversy over a proposal in the Legislature, prompting a swift reaction from voters and the author of the bill, which is called the “Right to Know and See Act.”

Even if it is amended to offer a choice of probes, the bill would contain some of the country’s strongest pre-abortion mandates.

It would require the ultrasound screen to face the woman while the doctor narrates the images, although the law states that it should not be “construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes,” the bill reads. Doctors who do not follow the prescribed routines could face felony charges and could be sued by the potential father and grandparents.

“I do need to make sure that we leave that up to the women’s choice,” Mr. Scofield said of the scanning method. “But I do think it is very important that these women are given as much information as possible before they make this difficult decision.”

Dr. Pippa Abston, a pediatrician in Huntsville, objected to what she said were unnecessary roadblocks to a legal procedure. “As a physician I don’t like the idea that they are going to micromanage my medical practice,” she said.

In Mississippi, a bill working its way through committee requires an ultrasound that provides an image of high quality, which cannot be achieved with abdominal procedures in the initial months of pregnancy. The woman must be offered a chance to see the image and hear the fetal heartbeat. She cannot avoid hearing a description of the sonogram unless, among other things, she is a victim of sexual assault or incest or the fetus is medically compromised.

The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a law with some of the country’s strongest provisions. It would require vaginal probes in many cases, display of the scanning screen to the patient and a printout of the image for inclusion in the patient’s medical records. It would also impose a 24-hour waiting period between ultrasound and abortion that critics say would be a burden for some women.

Labeled the Women’s Right to Know Act, the bill is opposed by the Pennsylvania Medical Society and other medical groups. But it has been approved by a House committee and its sponsors hope for passage this year.

Kathy L. Rapp, a Republican representative and the main sponsor, said that the concerns about requiring vaginal ultrasounds were exaggerated because most clinics perform the procedures before abortions anyway.

She said that she did not have plans for revision in light of the Virginia experience but that if Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, were to ask for changes, “just as the Virginia legislature heard from their governor, that would be a consideration.”

“But at this point the governor has not communicated any concerns regarding the bill,” she said.

Before the Virginia Senate passed the bill on Tuesday it was amended to say that victims of rape or incest, if they reported the crime, would not be required to have an ultrasound before an abortion. The bill must return to the House for final approval, which is expected, and then will go to the governor for signing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us...ewanted=2&_r=1

[Kobi]

In a win for Democrats, the Senate voted Thursday to table an amendment permitting employers and insurers to opt out of provisions in President Obama's health care proposal on moral or religious grounds.

The Senate voted 51-48 to kill the amendment, which was offered by Senate Republican Minority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri as an add-on to the transportation funding bill. Blunt and fellow Republicans cast the amendment as a fight to protect First Amendment rights (which include the freedom of religion.) Prior to the vote, Blunt argued that the language should be deemed noncontroversial by his colleagues, stating on the Senate floor that every member of the Senate, barring some of the most recently elected members, "have voted for bills that have this language in them."

But Democrats said the amendment would limit access to contraception and infringe on women's rights at a time when Congress needs to focus on the economy and employment. "These aren't the issues we should be debating right now," Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said on the Senate floor.

Following Thursday's vote, Blunt accused Democrats of playing politics with the issue.

"I am truly disappointed by the partisanship that has been injected into this debate on religious freedoms," Blunt said in a statement. "Instead of working to pass a bipartisan measure that has been part of our law for almost 40 years, this debate has been burdened by outlandish and divisive efforts to misinform and frighten Americans."

Blunt added that he will continue to fight this issue.

The future of Thursday's amendment in the closely-divided Senate hung on decisions from a handful of Senate centrists. Retiring Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine voted with the majority of Democrats to table the amendment, while three centrist Democrats-- Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska-- crossed party lines to vote with Republicans in favor of the amendment.

The president recently proposed a mandate requiring all employers to offer health insurance that fully covers contraception, including institutions such as colleges and business connected to Catholic churches, for example, that may oppose contraception on religious grounds. The proposal sparked significant controversy, angering those who viewed the proposal as an attack on religious liberties as well as many Catholic bishops and other religious groups.

In response, the president announced an "accommodation" for institutions that object to the mandate, putting the onus on health insurers instead of employers to provide full coverage for contraception and other women's health services.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...165939260.html