DOCSLIB.ORG

U:\Reproductive Health Care

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EXAMINING STATE EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 14, 2019 Serial No. 116–71 Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform ( Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov http://www.oversight.house.gov http://www.docs.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 38–554 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Acting Chairwoman ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Minority Member Columbia PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JODY B. HICE, Georgia RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, Illinois GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland JAMES COMER, Kentucky HARLEY ROUDA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas KATIE HILL, California BOB GIBBS, Ohio DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana PETER WELCH, Vermont CHIP ROY, Texas JACKIE SPEIER, California CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee MARK DESAULNIER, California KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands FRANK KELLER, Pennsylvania RO KHANNA, California JIMMY GOMEZ, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan DAVID RAPALLO, Staff Director MILES LICHTMAN, Professional Staff Member JENNIFER GASPER, Counsel JOSHUA ZUCKER, Clerk CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director CONTACT NUMBER: 202-225-5051 (II) CONTENTS Page Hearing held on November 14, 2019 ...................................................................... 1 WITNESSES Jennifer Box, St. Louis, Missouri Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 Dr. Colleen McNicholas, OB/GYN, Chief Medical Officer, Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 Fatima Goss Graves, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Wom- en’s Law Center Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 Allie Stuckey (minority witness), Carrollton, Texas Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 Marcela Howell, Founder and President/Chief Executive Officer, In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 Written opening statements and witness’ written statements are available at the U.S. House of Representatives Repository: https://docs.house.gov. The documents listed below are available at: https://docs.house.gov. * Letter from Ms. M’Evie Mead, Director of Policy and Organization, Planned Parenthood Advocates in Missouri; submitted by Rep. Clay. * ‘‘A Mother’s Love and the March that Matters,’’ article; submitted by Rep. Foxx. * ‘‘No, Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill Won’t Imprison Women Who Have Abor- tions,’’ article; submitted by Rep. Hice. * Violations at Abortion Clinics in Several States; submitted by Rep. Cloud. * Letter from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists; submitted by Acting Chairwoman Maloney. * Letter from Reproaction; submitted by Acting Chairwoman Maloney. * Letter from the Guttmacher Institute; submitted by Acting Chairwoman Maloney. * Letter from the American Civil Liberties Union; submitted by Acting Chairwoman Maloney. (III) Examining State Efforts To Undermine Access To Reproductive Health Care Thursday, November 14, 2019 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM WASHINGTON, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:19 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Carolyn Maloney, presiding. Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Clay, Lynch, Con- nolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Wasserman Schultz, Sar- banes, Speier, Kelly, DeSaulnier, Lawrence, Khanna, Gomez, Pressley, Tlaib, Jordan, Foxx, Massie, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Roy, Miller, Green, Armstrong, Steube, Keller, and Norman. Also present: Representatives Chu, Schakowsky, Schrier, and Lee. Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will now come to order. Good morning to everyone. The purpose of this hearing is to ex- amine how state policies, like those in Missouri, are impacting resi- dents’ access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare services, in- cluding abortion. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. For audience purposes, we welcome you and respect your interest in being here. In turn, we request and we ask you to respect the proceedings as we go forward in today’s hearings. With that, I will now recognize myself to give an opening statement. I would like to begin by acknowledging that this is the first full committee hearing we have held since our friend, our colleague, and our beloved chairman, Elijah Cummings, passed away. Chair- man Cummings spent his entire life fighting for justice and equal- ity for everyone, and he was a fierce champion for women’s access to healthcare. Across the country extreme forces in some state governments are taking draconian steps to violate women’s rights by restricting ac- cess to reproductive health services, including abortion. These state actions include prerequisite undue burdens, restrictions, and out- rageously invasive procedures for patients seeking abortions. Let me be clear about what these restrictions are. They are a denial of basic healthcare services that women have a right to receive no matter where they live. I want to thank my very good friend, Congressman Clay, for his leadership in requesting today’s hearing. Missouri has taken some of the most extreme actions to limit access to reproductive healthcare. Missouri is one of six states with only one remaining (1) 2 abortion provider, and as we will hear today, it is at risk of having no providers at all. Missouri’s one remaining clinic is Planned Par- enthood, and we thank that clinic’s director, Dr. McNicholas, for testifying here today and for her brave service to the women in her community every single day. Earlier this year, Dr. Randall Williams, the director of the Mis- souri State Health Department, ordered Planned Parenthood to perform medically unnecessary pelvic examinations on every single woman seeking an abortion. This was an invasive state-sponsored abuse of women seeking care. After significant public backlash, the State suspended this cruel practice. But Dr. Williams also recently was forced to admit that he directed state employees to collect in- formation about patients’ menstrual cycles to advance his ideolog- ical crusade. That is what they were spending taxpayers’ dollars on. I cannot begin to describe my disgust at these violations of pri- vacy and breaches of trust by government officials. Sadly Missouri’s actions are not taking place in isolation. Other states have pushed for similar restrictions. I believe these states have been emboldened by the Trump Administration’s systemic attacks on re- productive healthcare and general disrespect for women. In 2012, our former chairman, Darrell Issa, held a hearing in this room in this committee with an all-male panel of religious leaders who were trying to take away contraceptive coverage for women. They did not invite one single woman to testify on that panel. Then they refused our request to have Sandra Fluke, who was a Georgetown law school student at the time, testify about the importance of health insurance coverage of contraceptives. They said she was, and I quote, ‘‘not qualified.’’ It was at that hearing that I asked in protest, where are the women. It is time to let women speak, and it is time for everyone to listen. It is time for elected representatives here in Congress and in state houses across the country to protect the right to privacy and a woman’s right to abortion services rather than attack it, undermine it, and try to eliminate it. I want to thank Jennifer Box for sharing her family’s story with us. No one should ever have to make the heartbreaking decision that you and your husband had to make, but it is your decision and it does not belong to anyone else. I also want to thank Marcela Howell from In Our Own Voice, which is part of the National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, and Fatima Goss Graves from the Women’s National Law Center, for all their work and for being here today, and for helping the committee and me on this subject. I now recognize the Ranking Member Jordan for his opening statement, and I yield back. Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our wit- nesses for being here today. In the Declaration of Independence, signed 243 years ago, our Founding Fathers enshrined the prin- ciple that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable for everyone. I think it is always interesting to note the order the founders placed the rights they chose to mention. Can you really pursue happiness, can you chase down your goals and dreams if you first don’t have freedom, if you first don’t have liberty? Do you 3 ever enjoy true liberty,
Recommended publications
  • Planned Parenthood CEO at Georgetown Said Dismissive of Pro-Life

    Planned Parenthood CEO at Georgetown Said Dismissive of Pro-Life

    Planned Parenthood CEO at Georgetown said dismissive of pro- life views By Kurt Jensen Catholic News Service WASHINGTON – The controversy over the appearance by the head of Planned Parenthood at Jesuit-run Georgetown University April 20 became the background to a standing ovation. Cecile Richards was greeted warmly by more than 400 students, most of them women, at Lohrfink Auditorium. She was introduced by Helen Brosnan, a senior and president of the Georgetown Lecture Fund. Student Amber Athey, a member of Georgetown Right to Life, tweeted, “According to head of GU lecture fund, hosting an abortion provider is ‘in the spirit of a Jesuit university.'” The student-run Georgetown Lecture Fund has examined other hot topics this spring including sponsoring a talk via Skype from Russia by national-security whistleblower Edward Snowden and holding a panel discussion on the Catholic Church’s response to sexual abuse with Dominican Father Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, an advocate for abuse victims and a harsh critic of the U.S. church, and Washington lawyer Robert Bennett, who helped prepare a 2004 report on abuse prevention for the U.S. bishops. Richards’ one-hour appearance, billed as “a conversation,” earlier had been strongly criticized by Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, who wrote that “students, faculty, and the community at large are all impoverished, not enriched, when the institution’s Catholic identity is diluted or called into question by seemingly approving of ideas that are contrary to moral truth.” The event ran without incident, with only a small protest outside the auditorium by Georgetown Right to Life, a protest outside the campus by the Pennsylvania-based American Society for Tradition, Family and Property, and with heavy security, including District of Columbia police officers to supplement campus officers.
  • DAVID S. COHEN Drexel University Thomas R

    DAVID S. COHEN Drexel University Thomas R

    DAVID S. COHEN Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law 3320 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215)571-4714 [email protected] TEACHING EXPERIENCE DREXEL UNIVERSITY THOMAS R. KLINE SCHOOL OF LAW, Philadelphia, PA 2006-current Professor of Law Teach Constitutional Law courses and Sex, Gender, and the Law. AWARDS: Dean Jennifer L. Rosato Excellence in the Classroom Award (2009, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016) Abortion Care Network Person of the Year (2016) Center for Reproductive Rights Innovation in Scholarship Award (2015) UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL, Philadelphia, PA 2003-06 Lecturer-in-Law Taught upper-level seminar each spring entitled “Sex Discrimination and the Law.” UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Philadelphia, PA 2004-05 Adjunct Professor Taught undergraduate seminar each fall entitled “Law and Social Policy of Sex and Reproduction.” LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, Brooklyn, NY 2000-01 Adjunct Assistant Professor Developed and taught graduate-level political science classes entitled “The American Constitution and Political System” and “Current Topics in Law and Politics.” EDUCATION COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, J.D. 1997 Honors: Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 1994-97 Public Interest Commitment Award Columbia Human Rights Fellowship Activities: Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Managing Editor/Head Articles Editor Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Articles Editor Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, Research Assistant DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, B.A. in Philosophy with Women’s Studies minor, 1994 JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT, Santa Ana, CA 1998-99 Judicial Law Clerk for the Honorable Warren J. Ferguson 1 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, Trenton, NJ 1997-98 Judicial Law Clerk for the Honorable Alan B.
  • Conservative Review

    Conservative Review

    Conservative Review Issue #219 Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views March 11, 2012 In this Issue: Green Firms Get Fed Cash, Give Execs Bonuses, Fail By Ronnie Greene and Matthew Mosk of This Week’s Events ABC News Say What? Comprehensive List of Obama Tax Hikes Watch This! From Americans for Tax Reform A Little Comedy Relief Oil Company Heroes by John Stossel Short Takes Rush Limbaugh Isn't the Only Media Misogynist By the Numbers by Kirsten Powers Polling by the Numbers A Little Bias Links Saturday Night Live Misses Political Chess The Rush Section Great Headlines Missing Headlines Media Distortion: The Economy Roars Back Unemployment Rises; AP Spins for Regime Don't light your hair on fire, Mitt What Obama Says About Oil is Demented By Marc A. Thiessen As Gas Prices Rise, Obama Pushes His Green Sandra Fluke’s Statement is a Brilliant yet Typical Energy Money Laundering Operation Democrat Approach by Gary Kukis A look back to Sandra Flukes' spoken testimony - Transcript included Posted by Steve M Additional Rush Links Sandra Fluke's Amazing Testimony By Ira Stoll Perma-Links Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate A student demands that a Catholic school give up Too much happened this week! Enjoy... its religion to pay for her birth-control pills. By Cathy Cleaver Ruse The cartoons mostly come from: Sandra Fluke a Self-Described Professional www.townhall.com/funnies. Pro-Abortion Activist by Ethika Politika President Obama and Sandra Fluke If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t By Bill O'Reilly want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my Who is running Sandra Fluke? list.
  • Texas Heartbeat Law

    Texas Heartbeat Law

    Texas Heartbeat Law Learn about the new pro-life law protecting the unborn in Texas. The Texas Heartbeat Bill, SB 8, passed the Texas Legislature with bipartisan support and was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021. This new law requires physicians to check for a baby’s heartbeat and inform the mother if the presence of a heartbeat is detected. Once a heartbeat is detected, the doctor must take all necessary steps to protect the life of the child. Texas Heartbeat Law Overview: How is Texas’ heartbeat law different from other states? • Requires physicians to check for a baby’s The legislation enacting this law was drafted in a manner to prevent heartbeat and inform the mother if the anyone from suing the state or its officials to enjoin (stop) the presence of a heartbeat is detected. enforcement of the statute. The law’s strength lies in the fact that it is • Once a heartbeat is detected, the doctor entirely enforceable by private citizens. Without a duty to enforce the must take all necessary steps to protect statute, courts cannot preemptively prevent officers of the state from the life of the child. enforcing it. • Creates civil liability for aiding and How early can you detect a baby’s heartbeat? abetting an abortion. • Relies on civil enforcement of the law by Current technology can detect baby’s beating heart between 6-12 citizens, making it virtually impossible for a weeks. Texas law previously allowed for abortions as late as 20 weeks. court to strike down the law as “unconstitutional.” How can this bill ban abortion in Texas when Roe v.
  • The Smokescreen Problem in Abortion Jurisprudence

    The Smokescreen Problem in Abortion Jurisprudence

    Missouri Law Review Volume 85 Issue 4 Article 10 Fall 2020 The Smokescreen Problem in Abortion Jurisprudence: How the Undue Burden Standard and Long-Term Legislative Tactics Allow Courts to Turn a Blind Eye to True Legislative Intent Lucy Downing Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lucy Downing, The Smokescreen Problem in Abortion Jurisprudence: How the Undue Burden Standard and Long-Term Legislative Tactics Allow Courts to Turn a Blind Eye to True Legislative Intent, 85 MO. L. REV. (2020) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol85/iss4/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Downing: The Smokescreen Problem in Abortion Jurisprudence: How the Undue NOTE The Smokescreen Problem in Abortion Jurisprudence: How the Undue Burden Standard and Long-Term Legislative Tactics Allow Courts to Turn a Blind Eye to True Legislative Intent Lucy Downing* I. INTRODUCTION The issue of abortion has been passionately debated in this country for many years. For decades, our legal system has recognized that legitimate interests in the subject lie with both women and the State.1 From the time the right of free choice was found to be granted by our Constitution
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    Arsakeia-Tositseia Schools Model United Nations 2019 Committee: Economic and Social Council Issue: Ensuring access to legal abortion services Student Officer: IoannaFlessa Position: Deputy President INTRODUCTION Dear delegates, ECOSOC’s third topic is one of the most controversial and complex issues of our era. Formerly, abortion without medical necessity was considered as an illegal action which was chastened by the law. However, people’s concept changed throughout the years and medical abortions were legalized under certain circumstances. Nowadays, the topic of abortions is a subject of ongoing debate with many people having different opinions on the matter. This study guide will provide you with a very good starting point for your research. However, it is extremely important that you do your own research as well, regarding your country’s policy. Should you have any questions on the topic or the conference in general, feel free to contact me via email ([email protected]) or my Facebook account (IoannaFlessa). I hope that this experience will be special and enlightening for you and I am looking forward to meeting and working with all of you at the conference! Kind regards, Ioanna Flessa 1 Arsakeia-Tositseia Schools Model United Nations 2019 Important note from the chairs’ team In order for the chairs to fully understand the dynamics of the committee, discovering any misunderstanding prior to the debate and for the better preparation of the delegates you are asked to proceed as indicated below; 1) Conduct your chairs via email and informing them about your mun experience so that they can know what exactly to expect of you.
  • January 14, 2019 Members of the Human Rights Committee Office Of

    January 14, 2019 Members of the Human Rights Committee Office Of

    January 14, 2019 Members of the Human Rights Committee Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson 52 rue des Pâquis CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland Suggested List of Issues to Country Report Task Force on the United States for the 125th Session of the Human Rights Committee, 4-29 March 2019 The undersigned reproductive rights and justice and human rights organizations submit this suggested List of Issues to the Human Rights Committee (HRC) in preparation for the meeting of the Country Task Force on the United States during its 125th Session. This submission identifies seven reproductive rights and justice1 issues for the HRC to consider as it prepares its List of Issues for the review of the United States: (1) restrictive abortion laws (2) racial disparities in maternal health outcomes (3) permitting denial of reproductive health care based on one’s religious or moral beliefs (4) discrimination against immigrant women in accessing affordable health care (5) criminalization of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes (6) treatment of women in detention (7) impact of the Mexico City Policy, or Global Gag Rule, on global reproductive health These policies and practices implicate a range of rights protected by the ICCPR, including the rights to: non-discrimination (Article 2); equality between men and women (Article 3); life (Article 6); freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 7); privacy (Article 17); freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (Article 18); freedom of expression and opinion (Article 19); and equality before the law (Article 26). Signed, Abortion Care Network Amnesty International Black Mamas Matter Alliance Center for Reproductive Rights The City University of New York Law School, Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic In Our Own Voice National Advocates for Pregnant Women National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health SIA Legal Team SisterSong, Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective Abortion Access (Articles 2, 3, 6, 17) 1.
  • 2018-2019 Consolidated Annual Report

    2018-2019 Consolidated Annual Report

    Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri and Affiliated Corporations ANNUAL REPORT 2018-2019 4251 Forest Park Avenue | St. Louis, Missouri 63108 314-531-7526 | www.plannedparenthood.org/stlouis TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNUAL REPORT 2018-2019 5 Introduction 6 Health Services 8 Reproductive Health Services 10 Advocacy 11 2019 Missouri Legislative Session 13 Research 14 Education 16 Development & Fundraising 17 Leadership & Staff 18 Consolidated Financials 2018-2019 | Planned Parenthood Annual Report | 3 4 | 2018-2019 | Planned Parenthood Annual Report Resilient. Courageous. Dedicated. Few superlatives are adequate when describing Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri lately. We’ve experienced headwinds driven by extremists in and out of the government, but we have never seen anything like the past year. Whether it was a dangerous law banning abortion, a presidential administration blocking the ability of health care providers to share facts with patients, or a state regulator weaponizing licensing to prevent direct patient care, the 2018-19 fiscal year was turbulent. But amidst that volatile time, we also found optimism and hope. While most other organizations would have struggled to survive, Planned Parenthood thrived. Powerful interests wanted to shut us down, but each time they failed. We are still here. Not only are we still here, we’re fully engaged in planning for the future. We are leveraging technology and expanding our services. We are assessing the needs of our region, and planning new ways to meet our patients where they are, providing the essential services they need. Planned Parenthood has been a part of this community since 1932, and we’re not going anywhere.
  • Plaintiffs' Brief in Response to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss

    Plaintiffs' Brief in Response to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss

    Electronically Filed 2021-02-17 16:41:44 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE CASE NO. 20 CVS 500147 PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC, on behalf of itself, its physicians and staff, and its patients; et al., Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO v. ALL DEFENDANTS’ TIMOTHY K. MOORE, as Speaker of the North MOTIONS TO DISMISS Carolina House of Representatives, in his official capacity; et al., Defendants. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4 I. This Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 4 A. Plaintiffs Have Standing ......................................................................................... 4 1. Plaintiff Providers Have Standing in Their Own Right .............................. 5 a. Plaintiff Providers Have Suffered a Direct Injury Sufficient
  • Flexible Feminism and Reproductive Justice: an Essay in Honor of Ann Scales

    Flexible Feminism and Reproductive Justice: an Essay in Honor of Ann Scales

    Denver Law Review Volume 91 Issue 1 Symposium - Honoring the Work of Ann Article 10 Scales December 2020 Flexible Feminism and Reproductive Justice: An Essay in Honor of Ann Scales Lynne Henderson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Lynne Henderson, Flexible Feminism and Reproductive Justice: An Essay in Honor of Ann Scales, 91 Denv. U. L. Rev. 141 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. FLEXIBLE FEMINISM AND REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE: AN ESSAY IN HONOR OF ANN SCALES LYNNE HENDERSONt ABSTRACT Professor Ann Scales began her distinguished career by taking fem- inism and reproductive justice seriously. She became a leading feminist voice and influence on a number of topics. In later years, she returned to concerns about reproductive justice by presciently emphasizing the need to preserve women's access to abortions. This Essay discusses Professor Scales's concerns and feminist method and then turns to reproductive justice. The Essay notes that, with Scales, a right to abortion is foundational for reproductive justice. The Essay then examines the increasing narrowing of access to abortion through law. The Essay next examines a current crisis over access to contraception, including arguments that some contraceptives are aborti- facients and therefore should not be available and the debate over insur- ance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act.
  • A War on Which Women?: Constructing Women’S Interests in the Contraception Mandate Rulemaking

    A War on Which Women?: Constructing Women’S Interests in the Contraception Mandate Rulemaking

    A War on Which Women?: Constructing Women’s Interests in the Contraception Mandate Rulemaking Ashley English University of Minnesota Western Political Science Association Annual Conference Las Vegas, NV April 4, 2015 Abstract. This paper examines how women and their advocates constructed “women’s political interests” from the competing claims they advanced when they submitted comments during the 2012-2013 rulemaking process that implemented the contraception mandate. It uses automated text search coding, qualitative coding, and latent dirichlet allocation (LDA) analyses of 1,963 comments that interested organizations (including women’s organizations) and individual women submitted to determine how women and their advocates referred to women in their comments and whether women’s organizations provided a form of compensatory representation that adequately represented the concerns of American women more broadly. In general, I find that women and their advocates most often presented women’s interests in broad, universal terms because those terms allowed them to demonstrate they had a broad base of support when majoritarian and electoral considerations entered into the rulemaking process. Similarly, references to particular subgroups of women were relatively rare, with the most common references to subsets of women focusing on women’s ages and roles within the traditional family. Lastly, women’s organizations were more likely than other organizations and individual women to mention women and particular subsets of women, indicating that they do serve as compensatory representatives for women. However, the quality of that representation is up for debate since women’s organizations also often downplayed the concerns of women outside of the traditional family, women of color, and low-income women as they attempted to broaden women’s access to contraception.
  • Mandated Offer of Insurance Plans Not Covering Induced Abortions Outside of Certain Exceptions

    Mandated Offer of Insurance Plans Not Covering Induced Abortions Outside of Certain Exceptions

    REPORT TO THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIrgINIA AND REVIEW COMMISSION Evaluation of Proposed Mandated Health Insurance Benefits Evaluation of House Bill 1174: Mandated Offer of Insurance Plans Not Covering Induced Abortions Outside of Certain Exceptions COMMONWEALTH OF VIrgINIA RICHMOND MARCH 2013 Members of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Chairman Delegate John M. O’Bannon III Vice-Chairman Senator John C. Watkins Delegate David B. Albo Senator Charles J. Colgan Delegate M. Kirkland Cox Senator Janet D. Howell Delegate Johnny S. Joannou Delegate S. Chris Jones Delegate James P. Massie III Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr. Delegate Lacey E. Putney Delegate Lionell Spruill, Sr. Senator Walter A. Stosch Martha S. Mavredes, Auditor of Public Accounts Director Glen S. Tittermary Members of the Special Advisory Commission on Mandated Health Insurance Benefits Senator George L. Barker Delegate Timothy D. Hugo Delegate Terry G. Kilgore Senator Donald W. Merricks Senator A. Donald McEachin Delegate Christopher K. Peace Jeffrey Allende Terri B. Flagg Mark W. Foreman Eugene J. Koprowski Greg T. Madsen John W. Rhee, M.D. Charles Herbert Slemp III Laura Lee O. Viergever JLARC Staff for This Evaluation Nathalie Molliet-Ribet, Division Chief Kimberly A. Sarte, Chief Fiscal Analyst Massey S.J. Whorley, Senior Associate Legislative Analyst JLARC provides evaluations of proposed health insurance mandates in accordance with Sections 2.2-2503 and 30-58.1 of the Code of Virginia. Report No. 440 - Available on the JLARC website at http://jlarc.virginia.gov Copyright 2013, Commonwealth of Virginia. Evaluation of Proposed Mandated Health Insurance Benefits Evaluation of House Bill 1174: Mandated Offer of Insurance Plans Not Covering Induced Abortions Outside of Certain Exceptions JLARC SUMMARY House Bill (HB) 1174 of the 2012 General Assembly Session would mandate health insurers to offer policies that do not provide cover- age for abortion services outside of certain required exceptions.