Two New York Times editorials examine the current "wars" over abortion in the states and in the federal government. Also, Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup addresses potential court challenges to state abortion legislation.
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email deliveryhere. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families.
© 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.
~ The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill: The House Republican-backedbill (HR 3) "is so broad that it could block insurance coverage for abortions for countless American women," the editorial states. According to the editorial, the bill "would bar outright the use of federal subsidies to buy any insurance that covers abortion, well beyond" the ban on federal funding for abortion coverage in the new insurance exchanges. The editorial adds that the bill would prohibit tax credits for small businesses that provide insurance to their employees from being used to buy health plans covering abortion and also would prohibit people who buy their own health insurancefrom claiming a tax deduction for premiums of health plans covering abortion or the cost of an abortion. Further, people who use tax-preferred health savings accounts would not be able to pay for an abortion without paying taxes, the editorial says. The editorial calls the legislation and other efforts to restrict abortion access "far more extreme" than other legislation proposed at the federal level, adding, "Lawmakers who otherwise rail against big government have made it one of their highest priorities to take the decision about a legal medical procedure out of the hands of individuals and turn it over to the government" (New York Times, 1/29).
~ The Two Abortion Wars: State Battles Over Roe v. Wade: An increase in the number of governors and legislatures that are "solidly anti-abortion" considerably raises the prospect of "extreme efforts to undermine abortion access with Big Brother measures that require physicians to read scripts about fetal development and provide ultrasound images, and that impose mandatory waiting periods or create other unnecessary regulations," the editorial states. It specifically notes two efforts by antiabortion-rights activists -- bans on health insurance coverage of abortion and on abortion later in pregnancy. On the latter issue, while "[r]eigning Supreme Court precedent" restricts the government from banning abortion prior to what is considered viability -- 22 to 26 weeks' gestation -- a new Nebraska law (LB 1103) challenges the "viability standard" by banning abortions after 20 weeks' gestation, the editorial states. The objective of the Nebraska law and "[c]opycat laws" in other states is to "provide the Supreme Court's conservative majority with a new vehicle for further tampering with Roe v. Wade's insight that the decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy is best left to women and their doctors pre-viability." The editorial concludes, "Americans who support women's reproductive rights and oppose this kind of outrageous government intrusion need to respond with rising force and clarity to this real and immediate danger" (New York Times, 1/29).
~ In a letter to the editor, Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup writes, "Anti-choice lawmakers across the country may be heralding a new era in which they plan to mount aggressive campaigns to limit abortion," but those who oppose abortion rights "won't necessarily have the last word." She continues that in the last couple years, "anti-choice state legislators have pushed especially ambitious agendas, enacting some of the most extreme anti-choice legislation in recent memory." However, "[j]udges have declared these laws unconstitutional" time after time, she says, because "[t]hey violate women's rights by profoundly intruding on their private medical decisions and by imposing trumped-up regulations on abortion providers so they can no longer realistically provide women's services" (Northup, New York Times, 1/29).
~ The Two Abortion Wars: State Battles Over Roe v. Wade: An increase in the number of governors and legislatures that are "solidly anti-abortion" considerably raises the prospect of "extreme efforts to undermine abortion access with Big Brother measures that require physicians to read scripts about fetal development and provide ultrasound images, and that impose mandatory waiting periods or create other unnecessary regulations," the editorial states. It specifically notes two efforts by antiabortion-rights activists -- bans on health insurance coverage of abortion and on abortion later in pregnancy. On the latter issue, while "[r]eigning Supreme Court precedent" restricts the government from banning abortion prior to what is considered viability -- 22 to 26 weeks' gestation -- a new Nebraska law (LB 1103) challenges the "viability standard" by banning abortions after 20 weeks' gestation, the editorial states. The objective of the Nebraska law and "[c]opycat laws" in other states is to "provide the Supreme Court's conservative majority with a new vehicle for further tampering with Roe v. Wade's insight that the decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy is best left to women and their doctors pre-viability." The editorial concludes, "Americans who support women's reproductive rights and oppose this kind of outrageous government intrusion need to respond with rising force and clarity to this real and immediate danger" (New York Times, 1/29).
~ In a letter to the editor, Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup writes, "Anti-choice lawmakers across the country may be heralding a new era in which they plan to mount aggressive campaigns to limit abortion," but those who oppose abortion rights "won't necessarily have the last word." She continues that in the last couple years, "anti-choice state legislators have pushed especially ambitious agendas, enacting some of the most extreme anti-choice legislation in recent memory." However, "[j]udges have declared these laws unconstitutional" time after time, she says, because "[t]hey violate women's rights by profoundly intruding on their private medical decisions and by imposing trumped-up regulations on abortion providers so they can no longer realistically provide women's services" (Northup, New York Times, 1/29).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email deliveryhere. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families. © 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment