A PLANNED PARENTHOOD REPORT ON THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS
The War on Women: A Pernicious Web A Chronology of Attacks on Reproductive Rights In recent years the executive and legislative branches of our federal government have been waging a war on women and their reproductive rights. Retrograde anti-choice policies are being revived. Religious political extremists have been given key administration posts. Anti-choice activist judges have been nominated for and placed on the federal bench. Ideology has trumped science in appointments to scientific posts, in the censoring of government Web sites, in the funding of medically unsound abstinence-only sex education programs, and in the banning of medical research that could save lives. Anti-choice zealots have imposed oppressive restrictions on abortion. Procedure bans threaten women’s health. Family planning services are under attack by these same forces even though the best way to avoid abortion is to increase the availability of comprehensive sex education and a wide range of contraceptive options. The following chronology outlines many of the most egregious actions taken in a steady campaign against reproductive freedom both here and around the globe.
For today, the women of this nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies. But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows. --Justice Harry Blackmun, 1989 in the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services decision Chronology December 22, 2000 — For attorney general, the president gives the nod to extreme anti-choice zealot In his roles as attorney general and governor of Missouri, Ashcroft defended anti-choice legislation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (Planned Parenthood of Kansas City, Missouri v. Ashcroft, 1983); signed a bill declaring that life begins at conception (Missouri H.B. 1596, 1986); and declared the anniversary of Roe v. Wade as a “day in memoriam” for aborted fetuses (Eaton, 1989). As a U.S. senator, he voted against a resolution in favor of Roe v.
Wade (S. Amdt. 2321 to S. Amdt. 2320, 1999) and opposed contraceptive equity in insurance coverage for federal employees. Though the fight over Ashcroft’s nomination was hotly contested, he was eventually confirmed on a vote of 58–42. December 29, 2000 — The president selects anti-choice governor to be secretary of health and human services The post of secretary within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is crucial to the public health policies and priorities of the nation. Among other responsibilities, the secretary oversees a number of very important health care agencies, including reproductive health care for all women and families. These include the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Office of Population Affairs (OPA). Bush nominated anti-choice Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson for this key position. As governor, Thompson signed into law numerous anti-choice bills, including mandatory waiting periods during which women receive biased counseling messages; restrictions on minors’ access to abortion; so-called “partial birth” abortion ban legislation; and numerous bills declaring that life begins at conception (Braver, 2001). January 22, 2001 — The 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the president restores the Reagan-era global gag rule on international family planning assistance This rule prevents nongovernmental organizations in countries that receive U.S. international family planning assistance from using their own money — not that supplied by the U.S. — to provide abortion services, counseling, or referrals, or to lobby to change abortion laws. It effectively prevents health care providers from advising patients about abortion and from discussing laws that restrict abortion. The policy will result in sharply increased numbers of unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and the deaths of countless women around the world. Just weeks before the inauguration, Steve Mosher, president of the ultraconservative Population Research Institute, called on the president to use his executive powers to restrict reproductive rights in the U.S. and abroad (Mosher, 2000). While the decision was hailed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the director of the World Life League, Mark DeYoung, went even further, saying, “... in order to restore U.S. foreign policy ... All support for contraception abroad ... must be stopped” (Catholic World News, 2001; DeYoung, 2001). January 22, 2001 — The president asks Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), the U.S. House of Representatives’ stalwart opponent of international family planning programs, to address the annual “pro-
2
life” march on behalf of the administration on the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade Since 1981, Smith has led the charge on behalf of religious political extremists in the House to deny poor women around the world access to family planning and related reproductive health care. Smith is on record stating that the Pill is an “abortifacient,” and that Planned Parenthood should change its name to “Child Abuse, Incorporated” (DeSarno, 2002; Smith, 2001a). Smith opposes commonly used contraceptive methods, including Norplant®, Depo-Provera®, IUDs, and multiple doses of ordinary contraceptive pills. Speaking at the rally, Smith told marchers, “Thank God President Bush is moving decisively and courageously to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. ... Now that America has two good and honorable pro-life leaders named President Bush and Vice President Cheney, pray and fast and work as never before that we can seize this priceless opportunity the Good Lord has given us to protect children and their mothers from the violence of abortion” (Smith, 2001b). March 29, 2001 — The administration closes the White House Office for Women’s Initiatives and Outreach Created by President Clinton in 1995, the office was responsible for reviewing legislation for its impact on women and maintaining a network of leaders in the women’s community (Goldstein & Allen, 2001). April 9, 2001 — The president strips contraceptive coverage from federal employees in his first budget In 1998, Congress passed legislation requiring insurance companies participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) to cover prescription drugs, including contraceptives, if they provide an overall drug benefit. In his first budget submitted to Congress, the president stripped this coverage even though the Office of Personnel Management found that the coverage did not add any additional cost to the FEHBP premiums (Administration Budget Request, 2001). But Congress restored the benefit as part of the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill. April 26, 2001 — House passes the so-called “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” The House passed the first abortion-related legislation of the 107th Congress, the so-called “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” H.R. 503, by a vote of 252–172. On its face, this bill creates a separate additional penalty over and above harm to the woman for violation of a number of criminal statutes if, in the commission of a crime, an “unborn child” is
3
injured or killed. The dangerous reality of the bill, however, is that it would elevate the legal status of a fetus to that of an adult human being. By redefining the legal status of the fetus, this strategy could render Roe moot. Though a similar bill was introduced by Senator Mike DeWine (ROH), the Senate took no action on this legislation. Now, however, it is likely to pass both houses and be signed by the president. May 9, 2001 — The president nominates Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals During her tenure on the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen wrote a number of opinions concerning the application of the Texas law mandating parental notification before a minor may obtain an abortion. The Texas law, as required by the state constitution, provides a "judicial bypass," a proceeding that allows a mature minor, or a minor for whom parental involvement would not be in her best interests, to obtain a waiver of the parental involvement requirement (In re Jane Doe 10, 2002). Justice Owen's opinions have sought to impose a standard of proof on a minor seeking a judicial bypass that, in the words of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (then also a justice on the Texas Supreme Court), would have "create[d] hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute" and would be "an unconscionable act of judicial activism" (In re Jane Doe, 2000). The New York Times editorialized in September 2002, Owen is “so eager to issue conservative rulings in cases before her on the Texas Supreme Court that she has ignored statutory language and substituted her own views.” Owen’s nomination was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 5, 2002, but was resubmitted in the next Congress. See also January 7, 2003. May 9, 2001 — The president nominates Michael McConnell to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Senate confirms nomination on November 15, 2002 During his career as a law professor, McConnell has expressed his opposition to Roe v. Wade on numerous occasions and his belief that the U.S. Constitution does not protect a woman's right to choose. Professor McConnell has represented himself as a "pro-life leader … and scholar" seeking "legal reform" — including a constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v. Wade, which he believes is a "gross misinterpretation of the Constitution" (“The America We Seek: A Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern,” 1996). McConnell has written that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe "was of questionable legitimacy and even more questionable prudence" (McConnell, 1997), as well as a "mistake" (Hatch,
4
Hyde & Canady, 1997). On November 15, 2002, the Senate confirmed McConnell to the 10th circuit. May 9, 2001 — The president nominates District Court Judge Dennis Shedd to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Senate comfirms nomination on November 19, 2002 The nomination of Dennis Shedd to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals drew strong opposition from civil rights organizations who protested his pattern of ruling against minority and female plaintiffs in numerous employment discrimination cases and other civil rights cases. He also drew opposition based on insensitive comments he made when he dismissed a lawsuit aimed at removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina State House dome. His commentary minimized the significance of the Confederate flag to the African-American community as a symbol of slavery. On reproductive rights issues, he failed to be forthcoming in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In written questions from Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Cantwell (D-WA), Judge Shedd was asked directly about his views on privacy and reproductive rights. He refused to state that he believes that the Constitution guarantees a woman's right to choose. Rather, he merely acknowledged the Supreme Court's holdings in Griswold v. Connecticut (the 1965 decision that struck down state laws that had made the use of birth control by married couples illegal) and Roe and stated that he "understand[s] that those cases (in conjunction with their progeny) are the law of the land" (Shedd, 2002). But federal appellate courts do more than just apply existing precedent. Every day, they are asked to interpret the law and consider new precedent. Judge Shedd was given ample opportunity but refused to declare that he will protect our fundamental rights when interpreting the law. On November 19, 2002, the Senate confirmed Shedd to the 4th Circuit. May 22, 2001 — The president nominates Lavenski Smith to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Senate confirms nomination on July 16, 2002 From 1991 to 1993, Smith was executive director of the Rutherford Institute of Arkansas, which has consistently opposed abortion. The Rutherford Institute is a right-wing organization that regularly weighs in on legal challenges to abortion statutes and has time and again argued in favor of limitations on a woman's right to choose (The Rutherford Institute, et al., 2000). Indeed, it has called upon the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade because it was an "error to classify a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy as a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty" (The Rutherford Institute, 1989). During Smith's tenure at the Rutherford Institute, that organization signed an amicus brief in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), arguing in
5
support of a Pennsylvania law that required that before a married woman could have an abortion, she had to produce a signed statement that she had notified her spouse of the abortion. On July 16, 2002, the Senate confirmed Smith to the 8th Circuit. May 23, 2001 — The president floats the possibility of nominating John Klink — an ardent opponent of birth control and a spokesperson for the Vatican in its opposition to condom use — to oversee the U.S. global population program The White House withdrew Klink’s name from consideration after reproductive health and women’s advocates exposed his opposition to promoting condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and to providing reproductive health services for refugee women. Klink was the Vatican’s spokesperson when it cut funding for the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in 1996, because UNICEF had cosponsored a manual that endorsed making emergency contraception available to women who have been raped during civil conflicts and refugee crises (Catholics for a Free Choice, 2002). Knowing that such a nomination would not have been approved by the Senate, Bush nevertheless included Klink on U.S. delegations to international meetings where reproductive health and rights were being discussed, including the U.N. Children’s Summit, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and a preparatory meeting for the Fifth Asia Conference on Population and Development. In each of these meetings, Klink aggressively advanced an anti-choice agenda on behalf of the administration. May 25, 2001 — The president nominates Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals In 1976, Pickering chaired the Human Rights and Responsibilities Subcommittee of the National Republican Party Platform Committee that approved a plank protesting the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade and calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning abortion (WomenseNews, 2002). That plank called Roe "an intrusion into the family structure" (PR Newswire, 2002). At that convention, Pickering also opposed a plank supporting the Equal Rights Amendment (WomenseNews, 2002). From 1972 to 1980, Pickering served two terms in the Mississippi State Senate, where he voted for a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to ban abortion and voted against state funding for family planning programs (PR Newswire, 2002). Judge Pickering’s nomination was defeated March 14, 2002, but his nomination was resubmitted in the next Congress and given an interim appointment during the recess of 2004. See also January 7, 2003, and January 16, 2004)
6
June 22, 2001 — The president nominates Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who has a long record of anti-choice advocacy, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl is nominated to serve on the 9th Circuit. During her career, Judge Kuhl has distinguished herself as a fervent opponent of women’s civil rights, including reproductive freedom. While serving in the Reagan administration as civil division deputy in the Justice Department, Judge Kuhl worked to restrict reproductive rights. In an amicus curiae brief for the U.S. in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 US 474 (1986) (NARAL, June 2001), the Reagan administration urged the Supreme Court not only to uphold Pennsylvania’s restrictions on abortion services, but also to overturn Roe v. Wade. According to former Solicitor General Charles Fried, “the most aggressive memo” in support of urging a reversal of Roe in the Thornburgh brief came from Civil Division Deputy Kuhl and another Justice Department attorney (Alliance for Justice). A “hold” has been placed on Judge Kuhl’s nomination by one of her home state (CA) senators, thus a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee is still pending (Doyle, 2002). The president re-nominated Kuhl in 2003. (see January 7, 2003) July 31, 2001 — House passes the “Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001” H.R. 2505, the “Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001,” passed in the House by a vote of 265–162. As a health care provider and advocate for women’s reproductive health needs, PPFA has a strong interest in ensuring that decisions made in the areas of medical research and technology are based on sound science and medicine. August 9, 2001 — The president prevents taxpayer funding for additional stem cells beyond existing stem cell lines, placing severe limits on stem cell research The administration’s limitations on stem cell research are not only scientifically baseless but also ignore the wishes of a majority of Americans. The restrictions will most likely severely limit research, hampering gains that scientists had hoped to achieve in developing new treatments for a broad range of conditions and diseases. In bowing to the demands of a small number of anti-choice extremists, the administration is sacrificing the health of Americans and others in the process. The
7
president indicated he would handpick a council of scientists to study the issue (Bush, 2001). September 10, 2001 — The president nominates Federal District Court Judge D. Brooks Smith to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Senate confirms nomination on July 30, 2002 Judge D. Brooks Smith has not demonstrated that he understands or is committed to protecting women's rights, the right to privacy, reproductive freedoms, and other basic civil rights. Smith has shown this through his judicial record, his response to questions put to him by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his long-standing membership in a private club that excludes women. The Senate voted to confirm Smith on July 31, 2002 (Hudson, 2002; National Women’s Law Center, 2002). October 11, 2001 — The administration moves to increase “abstinence-only” education funding In his FY2001 budget, the president doubled the amount of funding for “abstinence-only” education, representing an increase of $20 million (NASTAD, 2002). The FY2003 budget, proposed an additional $33 million increase for “abstinence-only” sex education programs. This would bring the government’s annual support for these unproven and dangerous programs to $135 million (HHS, 2002a). The “abstinence-only” education that the Administration supports must teach that sex outside marriage is dangerous and not the accepted cultural norm. “Abstinence-only” sexuality education must also withhold information about contraception, including condoms (which help prevent unintended pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS). November 30, 2001 — The president names “abstinence-only” proponent to lead a U.S. AIDS Panel Patricia Funderburk Ware is nominated to head the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA). Ware served in the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush and was also with Americans for a Sound HIV/AIDS Policy, a group that lobbied against including HIV/AIDS in the Americans With Disabilities Act and that promotes an “abstinence-only” agenda. An ardent supporter of “abstinence-only” education, Ware said in testimony before a House committee, "Without a conscious and focused emphasis on the tenets inculcated in the abstinence education approach, sexual restraint tempered with morals and values, and a rebuilding of the two-parent family, America will lose the battle of AIDS and babies having babies" (Wetzstein, 2001).
8
February 5, 2002 — Department of Justice intervenes in a case involving a ban on abortion procedures that are necessary to protect the health of the woman During his confirmation hearings, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that Roe is settled law and he would uphold it. However at its first opportunity, the administration intervened in an abortion-related case. The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The case involves an Ohio law that was declared unconstitutional because it banned so-called “partial birth” abortion without providing an adequate exception to protect a woman’s health. Such an exception is mandated by every Supreme Court case involving abortion, beginning with Roe v. Wade and continuing through the Court’s 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, all of which hold that in any abortion regulation, protecting a woman’s health must remain paramount. In urging that the Court of Appeals uphold the Ohio law, Ashcroft advocated a position that would erode that principle and build the platform to unravel Roe. March 1, 2002 — The president appoints former Representative Tom Coburn to the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) Coburn, an outspoken opponent of condom use and staunch supporter of “abstinence-only” education, was named co-chair of the council known as the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA). As a member of Congress, Coburn pushed the CDC to label condoms ineffective against the spread of some sexually transmitted infections and has vowed to take the focus off condom use as a means to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS (CDC, 2002a; Coburn & Weldon, 2001). Peter Brandt, director of public policy response efforts at the anti-choice organization Focus on the Family, declared that Coburn “would be an ideal choice” for co-chair of PACHA or as the new U.S. Surgeon General (SIECUS, 2002). March 1, 2002 — The president names cofounder of anti-condom group to the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) Joe McIlhaney, founder of the Medical Institute (formerly the Medical Institute for Sexual Health), is named as a member of the advisory council (PACHA) (HHS, 2002b). McIlhaney and the institute have a long history of opposing condom use and disseminating misleading and false claims about condom efficacy. McIlhaney is also a staunch supporter of “abstinence-only” sexuality education (McIlhaney, 2002; The Medical Institute, 2002a). March 5, 2002 — HHS announces new rules making fetuses but not pregnant women eligible for prenatal care in the CHIP program
9
HHS Secretary Thompson proposed new regulations that would extend coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to “unborn children.” The new regulation recognizes the fetus at any stage of development as a “person,” making it eligible for health coverage. The regulation does not provide health coverage to the woman either prenatal or postpartum, thus elevating the fetus and reducing the woman to mere “host” status. Though previously supportive of bipartisan legislation to extend health coverage to pregnant women, the administration withdrew its support after issuing the new regulations. (State Children’s Health Insurance Program; Eligibility for Prenatal Care and Other Health Services for Unborn Children, 2002). April 17, 2002 — House passes the “Child Custody Protection Act” The “Child Custody Protection Act,” H.R. 476, was passed by the House. This bill would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion unless the parental involvement requirements of her home state had been met. If the bill were enacted, persons convicted would be subject to imprisonment, fines, and civil suits. The bill was considered without amendments, a chief concern for those opposing the legislation. A motion by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee with exceptions for siblings, grandparents, and religious counselors was rejected, 173–246. The final vote on this legislation was 161–260. May 2002 — Administration representatives fight sexuality education and oppose condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention at the U.N. Children’s Summit The U.S. delegation to the U.N. Children’s Summit tried to block consensus among 180 nations on a global plan of action to promote children’s well-being and rights by opposing sexuality education for teens. Claiming that the phrase “reproductive health services and education” implies a right to abortion and abortion counseling, the U.S. delegation fought to remove the language. In doing so, the U.S. overturned prior global agreements establishing adolescents’ right to information about sexual abuse, birth control, and condoms. The U.S. also opposed efforts to provide special rehabilitation for girls who are victims of war crimes, which usually means rape. The U.S. justified this violation of basic human rights by alleging that supporting the measure would be construed as providing information about emergency contraception or abortion to girls who have been raped. It also opposed the promotion of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Led by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, the delegation to the summit reflected Bush’s ultra-right wing domestic constituencies, including Concerned Women for America, former
10
Vatican envoy John Klink, the World Congress of Families, and the Heritage Foundation (Curphey, 2002; Ireland, 2002; Linzer, 2001; Reuters, 2002; “UN Special Session on Children,” 2002). The final outcome was hailed as a “huge win” by the National Right to Life organization (Andrusko, 2002). June 6, 2002 — The Department of Education appoints Title IX commission that threatens athletic programs for girls and women Despite the well-documented benefits of athletic programs for girls and women, the administration is threatening Title IX. According to Women’s Sports Foundation, the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, appointed by the U.S. Department of Education to review the impact of Title IX on athletic programs, will likely recommend changes that will seriously weaken the law’s equality standards. “The levels they suggest would allow institutions to treat female athletes like second-class citizens, receiving from 2% to 25% fewer opportunities to participate and scholarship dollars” (Women’s Sports Foundation).
July 2002 — The president appoints Louise Oliver, former president of Harvard Law School’s Society for Law, Life, and Religion, as special assistant to the U.S. State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration According to the International Women’s Health Coalition, Oliver “has no professional background in international population issues. She was president of Harvard Law School’s Society for Law, Life, and Religion — a group ‘dedicated to defending religious values and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death’ that promotes ‘pro-life and religious values in the Harvard community as well as society at large’” (Marshall, 2002). July 22, 2002 — The administration withholds $34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child health care, and HIV/AIDS prevention from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Long a target of family planning opponents, UNFPA supports birth control and reproductive health services in more than 140 countries throughout the world. At the behest of Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), the House of Representatives’ most ferocious opponent of international family planning programs, the Administration withdrew U.S. funding based on false claims that UNFPA supports coercive abortion practices. The decision came despite prior affirmations by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who testified before a Senate committee in January 2001 that “UNFPA does invaluable work” (Powell, 2001) and taxpayer-funded fact-
11
finding mission that found no evidence that UNFPA supports coercive family planning practices in China (Brown, et al., 2002). July 24, 2002 — House passes abortion ban legislation known as the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002” H.R. 4965, the abortion ban legislation known as the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002," passed by a vote of 274–151 with one vote of “present.” Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) offered a motion to send the bill back to committee to add a health exception to the legislation identical to the Supreme Court's language in Stenberg v. Carhart. This motion failed by a vote of 187–241. This legislation was previously passed in 1996 and 1997 and vetoed by President Clinton. The bill passed the House again in 2000 after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down as unconstitutional a Nebraska law virtually identical to the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002.” July 25, 2002 — The administration announces availability of financial assistance and applications for embryo “adoption” Notice was made that approximately $900,000 was available in the FY2002 Labor-HHS appropriations bill to support embryo “adoption” public awareness campaigns. Historically this has typically been referred to as embryo “donation.” The use of the word “adoption” comes from the adoption agency Nightline Christian Adoptions, an anti-choice organization that implies that an embryo is equal to a child. This is consistent with the administration’s efforts to elevate the legal status of the fetus or embryo at every opportunity. July 26, 2002 — The president does an about-face on support of women’s rights treaty The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), created in 1979, requires ratifying nations to remove discriminatory barriers against women in the areas of legal rights, education, employment, health care, politics, and finance. Though 170 nations have ratified it, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that has not done so (Thrupkaew, 2002). In order for the U.S. to ratify an international treaty, two-thirds of the Senate must approve it. Despite more than two decades of pressure from women’s organizations, the U.S. has not ratified the treaty, largely due to opposition from hard-right policymakers, most notably the notoriously anti-choice Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), now retired. In February, the administration notified the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that CEDAW was “generally desirable and should be
12
approved” (Thomas, 2002). It was a positive signal from the administration and helped generate momentum in the Senate to ratify the treaty. However, the Administration did an about-face, informing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a new “careful review [by the U.S. Department of Justice] is appropriate and necessary.” The notification was sent by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is headed by CEDAW opponent John Ashcroft (Thrupkaew, 2002). August 2, 2002 — The president withholds more than $200 million in funding for programs to support women and address HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan The president signed legislation approved by Congress that included $2.5 million in emergency funding for programs to support women in Afghanistan, only to determine later that the programs did not merit emergency funding. This determination was made despite the fact that surveys conducted by UNICEF and the CDC has found that Afghan women suffer from one of the highest levels of maternal mortality in the world (UNICEF, 2002). Not only were the funds for women’s programs withheld but also $200 million to address HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan (Marshall, 2002). September 6, 2002 — The president names anti-condom, abstinenceonly proponent to the CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention Dr. Freda McKissic Bush was named to the CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention. Dr. Bush is a member of the advisory council of the Medical Institute — an anti-condom “research” group — and the director of Virginity Rules, an “abstinence-only” program (CDC, 2002b; The Medical Institute, 2002b). September 25, 2002 — House passes the so-called “Abortion NonDiscrimination Act” (ANDA), a sweeping refusal clause that in truth allows any health care entity to discriminate against any provider who provides or even gives information about abortion The House passed H.R. 4691, the so-called "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act," by a vote of 229–189 with two members voting “present.” H.R. 4691 was supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and introduced by Representative Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) (USCCB, 2002). The legislation allows a broad range of health care entities to refuse to comply with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to abortion services. Proponents misleadingly characterize the language as a “clarification” of existing law (Armey, 2002). This is not the case. It is a sweeping new exemption from current laws and regulations pertaining to
13
abortion services. Far from constituting a simple refusal clause, as sponsors claim, the legislation amounts to a broad noncompliance permit for entities that refuse to abide by the same laws that govern other health care providers. If passed, ANDA could deny low-income women lifesaving medical information about, and referrals to, abortion services, undermine states’ ability to enforce their own constitutional protections, block state attempts to improve women’s access to full reproductive health services, and undermine states’ ability to set their own licensing and certification standards for health care facilities. The entities can flout the law by claiming discrimination. They need not have religious or moral grounds for doing so even though that is what the proponents of the bill claim. October 2002 — The U.S. State Department of State freezes $3 million in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to antichoice objections to the WHO’s Human Reproduction Program The State Department froze a portion (about $3 million) of the U.S. contribution to the World Health Organization (WHO) because of antichoice activists’ objections to the WHO’s research program, known as the Human Reproduction Program. The action was taken following antichoice complaints that the WHO conducts research on mifepristone – the early medical abortion option -- with other funding sources (Maloney, et al., 2002). However, no U.S. monies are spent on mifepristone research. October 2002 — HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information The NIH removed scientific findings of the National Cancer Institute that, contrary to anti-choice propaganda, abortions do not increase the risk of breast cancer. A bipartisan group of House members had sought to have the information restored in a letter dated July 9, 2002 — HHS never responded. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent a letter dated October 21, 2002, to HHS Secretary Thompson seeking clarification of the removal of information from HHS Web sites. In addition, the NIH and CDC have removed fact sheets on condom effectiveness as well as a sexuality education curriculum called “Programs that Work” (Waxman, 2002). October 2002 — The administration gives embryos new status in the HHS Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter The administration modified the charter of the federal advisory committee that addresses the safety of research volunteers, declaring that embryos in experiments are to be considered “human subjects.” This change
14
represents another action aimed at elevating the legal status of the fetus to that of a person (Weiss, 2002). October 7, 2002 — HHS announces “abstinence-only” advocate to oversee nation’s family planning program HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson named Dr. Alma Golden, a Texasbased pediatrician and longtime “abstinence-only” proponent, to the position of deputy assistant secretary of population affairs. This position oversees the implementation of Title X, the nation’s family planning health service program. At a meeting of Title X delegates, Golden called for more emphasis on “abstinence-only” education within the family planning program (HHS, 2002d). October 24, 2002 —Anti-choice House members calls on USAID to exclude reproductive health organizations in developing countries from receiving HIV/AIDS funding – extending the global gag rule Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) and nine other members of the House sent a letter to Andrew Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), objecting to a recent $65 million grant to the Population Council because of its work on mifepristone – the early medical abortion option. Smith also objected to the Population Council’s integrated strategy promoting condom use and abstinence to reduce HIV infection among youth (versus “abstinence only”). The letter further proposed that the global gag rule be expanded to cover HIV/AIDS funding (currently, it only applies to population funding). This would mean that many reproductive health care providers who are the most extensive and trusted service network on the frontlines of fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic in developing countries would be prohibited from receiving U.S. funding (Smith, 2002). November 2, 2002 — The administration reverses U.S. position in support of 1994 global agreement that affirms the right of all couples and individuals to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to do so (United Nations, 1994) A U.N. regional meeting was held to review progress made in implementing the goals agreed to in the International Conference of Population and Development Programme of Action (commonly referred to as the Cairo Programme of Action). Representatives of the Bush administration took a nonnegotiable position that language affirming the right to reproductive and sexual health be deleted from the conference document because it implies a right to abortion. The delegation insisted on “abstinence-only” sexuality education for teens; inserted governmental
15
support of faith-based organizations; argued against the need for contraceptive security, which aims to prevent shortages of contraceptive supplies; and rejected the validity of proven peer education in favor of “family” education. The U.S. delegation consisted of Pedro Moreno, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson’s “abstinence-only” point person; Louise Oliver, a junior State Department appointee who once headed Harvard’s Students for Life; and John Klink, former advisor to the Vatican’s U.N. mission and a leading opponent of family planning services (Enda, 2002). November 14, 2002 — House passes Bankruptcy Bill HR 333, without FACE provisions The House refused to include in the Bankruptcy Bill HR 333 a provision to prevent violent protestors who criminally violate the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) from discharging their debts through bankruptcy proceedings. The bill then passed in the House minus the FACE provision. The Senate adjourned without taking up the bill, leaving it to the 108th Congress to decide. November 25, 2002 — The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Web site posts “revised” fact sheet that suggests an unproven link between abortion and breast cancer In the revisions of the National Cancer Institute fact sheet on abortion and breast cancer, the government suggests a scientifically baseless connection between the two. This bogus link preys on millions of women’s legitimate concerns about breast cancer risks. The best available evidence — from large population-based cohort studies — shows that induced abortion has no net effect in putting women at increased risk for developing breast cancer (Bartholomew & Grimes, 1998). December 2, 2002 — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Web site posts “revised” fact sheet downplaying condom effectiveness The changes to the CDC fact sheet on condoms cast doubt on condom effectiveness, when in fact the effectiveness of condoms against unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection has long been established (PPFA, 2000). December 11-17, 2002 — The administration advances position that life begins at conception at regional population conference in Asia The administration attempted to weaken a global consensus on reproductive rights at a population conference for the Asia and Pacific region. The purpose of the conference was for Asian and Pacific nations
16
to discuss the health and well-being of their citizens and countries, and to affirm their commitment to the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development. The administration claimed the agreement “promoted abortion and underage sex” (Dao, 2002) and tried to substitute language that would dismantle sex education, undermine condom use in HIV/AIDS prevention, and water down policies intended to prevent and treat unsafe abortion. Asian and Pacific nations maintained a united front, challenging the administration’s anti-family planning, anti-health proposals. In the end, the U.S. delegation stood isolated, and the Asian and Pacific nations voted 30-1 on a progressive plan of action that affirms and strengthens previous agreements to ensure that all couples and individuals have the right to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children. December 24, 2002 – The administration appoints religious extremists to important FDA reproductive health committee The Bush administration on December 24 appointed David Hager, M.D., and at least two other anti-choice doctors to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Hager is a spokesperson for the Christian Medical Association and member of the Physicians Resource Council of the ultra conservative Focus on the Family. Hager is noted for prescribing biblical scriptures to cure PMS and for his opposition to prescribing contraceptives to unmarried women. An outspoken opponent of mifepristone — the early medical abortion option, he spearheaded the citizens’ petition to the FDA filed by the Christian Medical Association that attempted to revoke the FDA’s approval of mifepristone (Tumulty, 2002). Another new appointee, Joseph B. Stanford, M.D., is so extreme in his views that he refuses to prescribe "contraceptives of any sort." He also erroneously classifies some forms of the birth control pill as potential abortifacients (Stanford, 1999). Appointee Susan A. Crockett, M.D., is an at-large board member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (AAPLOG) A fourth appointee, Vivian Lewis, M.D., has called for more stringent controls on mifepristone. January 2003 –U.S. Web censors go global Like the NIH and the CDC (see October 2002 entry above) USAID has joined the efforts to censor government and government-funded Web sites. A cable sent to missions around the world directs USAID-funded programs and publications to reflect the policies of the administration (U.S. State Department, 2002.
17
The impact of the censors can be seen on USAID's own Population & Reproductive Health resources Web pages. According to an anonymous source, links to resource organizations, including International Planned Parenthood Federation, were deleted in January 2003 because some of the organizations support legal abortion. January 7, 2003 – The president renominates Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl to Circuit Courts of Appeals The judicial nominations to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of Judges Pickering and Owen were resurrected. Both had been rejected by the Senate because of their abysmal records on a host of issues, including trying to roll back women’s fundamental civil and human rights. Likewise, the president re-nominated Judge Kuhl to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals even though one of her home state (CA) senators placed a “hold” on her first nomination. (For details on their records, please see May 9 and 25 and June 22, 2001, entries above) (Savage, 2003). See also May 9, 2001; May 25, 2001; June 22, 2001; and January 16, 2004. February 3, 2003 – The president’s FY 2004 budget fails family planning programs and denies women access to abortion services Despite increasing demand for family planning services as more and more U.S. families are squeezed by the struggling economy, President Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2004 provides no increase for the Title X family planning program. Yet, the president’s budget continues to waste money on unproven abstinence-only sex education programs with his proposed 83 percent increase over 2002 levels for abstinence-only education grants. The president also used the budget to deny women access to abortion services. The proposed budget prohibits federal funds to provide abortions for women in prison (except in cases of rape and when the woman’s life is endangered) and for women who depend on the federal government for their health care benefits, including poor women and federal employees. The proposed budget also would hurt women around the world. The president included his global gag rule, prohibiting the provision of abortion services or counseling and lobbying for abortion rights by agencies that accept U.S. foreign aid (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2003).
18
February 28, 2003 – House of Representatives passes ban on therapeutic cloning The House approved H.R. 534, a measure that would ban all cloning, including therapeutic cloning, and would shut down lifesaving medical research to cure Alzheimer’s, diabetes, Parkinson’s, and other devastating diseases (Porio, 2003). March 13, 2003 – Politics trumps women’s health, Senate passes abortion ban The U.S. Senate passed an abortion ban with no exception for women’s health. Despite affirming its support for Roe v. Wade, the Senate’s ban is in direct conflict with Roe and with Stenberg v. Carhart, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a nearly identical ban unconstitutional (Dewar, 2003). Senators rejected a prevention package, sponsored by Patty Murray (DWA) and Harry Reid (D-NV), which would have supported family planning initiatives to reduce unintended pregnancy and to improve access to prenatal and postpartum care for women. By defeating this measure, which would have reduced the need for abortion, anti-choice senators proved yet again that their real agenda is to dismantle women’s reproductive rights (Holland, 2003). Anti-choice leaders in the House promise the legislation will move quickly. And the president promised to sign the ban into law. May 22, 2003 — Senate and House defeat Department of Defense (DOD) amendments on access to abortion for women in the military Under current law, the more than 100,000 women serving in the military and living on American military bases overseas are prohibited from obtaining abortion services in overseas military hospitals, even with their own money (Harman, 2002). These women must either search for abortion services elsewhere in the country in which they are currently serving or ask their supervisors for permission and time to travel to another country where abortion is legal. This ban unnecessarily puts the lives of women in the military at risk by forcing them to obtain illegal or inadequate services or delay having an abortion, regardless of possible threats to their health. Each year Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) offer an amendment in the Senate and House to allow military women stationed overseas to obtain an abortion at military facilities if they pay for it with their own funds. The
19
Senate defeated the Murray-Snowe amendment to the DOD authorization bill by a vote of 51–48 (S. Amdt. 691 to S. 1050). Following the Senate's vote, the House defeated, 227–201, Rep. Sanchez's amendment to the DOD authorization bill (H.R. 2062). June 4, 2003 – H.R. 760, abortion ban passes House U.S. House of Representatives passes legislation that could put doctors in jail for providing the best and safest health care to women. This dangerous ban prevents women, in consultation with their families and doctors, from making decisions about their own health. Anti-choice members of Congress insist on advancing this legislation to influence election politics and press forward their long-term goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. This legislation lacks an important exception to protect women’s health, which the Supreme Court unequivocally has said is a fatal flaw in any restriction on abortion. The so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban would outlaw safe, pre-viability abortions in violation of a woman's right to choose. August 1, 2003 — State Department denies funds for refugee AIDS prevention The State Department has denied funding for the Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium (RHRC). Its real target was RHRC member Marie Stopes International (MSI), a U.K.-based reproductive health organization that provides abortions in programs not related to the RHRC, as well as HIV prevention services to refugee women. The State Department declared that its decision was a “legal” one, not ideological, because MSI works with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in China. Funding had already been withdrawn from UNFPA on the erroneous grounds that it supported forced abortions in China. The administration announced that if MSI dropped out, it would continue to support the consortium’s AIDS prevention programs in refugee settings in Africa and Asia. But in an admirable show of solidarity, the consortium refused to exclude MSI from its work. The other members of the consortium include CARE, American Refugee Committee, International Rescue Committee, the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, John Snow International, and Columbia University School of Public Health (Swarns, 2003). August 29, 2003 — The president extends global gag rule to all international family planning programs
20
Taking advantage of the summer lull that peaks on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day weekend, President Bush quietly issued a memorandum that extended the global gag rule to family planning funds administered by the U.S. Department of State (Bush, 2003). Earlier in the summer, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to repeal the global gag rule by adopting the Global Democracy Promotion Act authored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in a vote of 53–43 (S. Amdt. 1141 to S. 925). September 4, 2003 — Judicial nominee Miguel Estrada abandons his bid for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Initially nominated by the president on May 9, 2001, Miguel Estrada’s written record elucidating his legal opinions was scant and he gave vague responses to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his views on major legal issues including Roe v. Wade. When the committee sought documents to clarify Estrada’s jurisprudence, the Bush administration rebuffed the senators’ request for copies of legal memoranda authored by Estrada during his stint in the Justice Department’s solicitor general’s office (Dewar, 2003). With so little information about Estrada available to them, the committee refused to vote on his nomination in the Senate’s 2002 session (Savage, 2002). The president renominated Estrada on January 7, 2003 (Hutcheson, 2003). The Judiciary Committee wasted no time satisfying the administration and voted to approve Estrada’s nomination on January 30 (Lewis, 2003a). With the administration’s continued refusal to release Estrada’s legal memoranda and Estrada’s perpetually evasive answers about important issues including reproductive rights, Senate Democrats vowed to fight the nomination in the full Senate and launched a historic filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Estrada. Despite threats from Estrada supporters to change filibuster rules and circumvent Senate procedures, Estrada was worn down by the resolute resistance and formally withdrew his name from consideration on September 4, 2003 (Lewis, 2003b). September 17, 2003 – The so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is sent to conference with the House of Representatives An abortion ban (S.3), which would endanger women's health and deprive them of their constitutional right to obtain safe, pre-viability abortion procedures, passed the Senate. It included an amendment authored by Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), affirming support
21
for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide (S. Amdt. 260 to S.3). But the House Republicans did not include such language in their version of the bill. Therefore, the conference committee made up of members of both the House and the Senate must decide whether or not to keep the Roe amendment. Boxer, in an effort to put the Senate on record as supporting Roe and to pressure the conference committee to keep the Roe amendment language in the final version of the bill, demanded an extended debate and a formal vote opposing the House bill. Boxer’s motion passed by a vote of 93–0. But the Boxer amendment was a Pyrrhic victory. The opposition, uncertain it could rally the votes needed to defeat it, cynically cast their votes unanimously in favor of the amendment as a way to rob the motion of its significance (Stolberg, 2003). This was simply an anti-choice tactic to move the bill to conference, where the opponents of choice knew the Roe amendment will be stripped from the bill (Editorial, 2003). “It won’t be a problem,” said anti-choice extremist Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) (Stolberg, 2003). October 22, 2003 – Congress passes dangerous ban on abortion, endangering women’s lives Congress passed the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, endangering the health of women all across America. This reckless ban outlaws commonly practiced abortion procedures performed in the second trimester of pregnancy (Merck Manual, 1999) and provides no safeguards for women’s health (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, S. 3, 2003). The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that any ban that does not safeguard women's lives is unconstitutional (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992; Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000). The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG, 2003), the American Nurses Association (ANA, 1996), and the American Medical Women's Association (AMWA, 1999) oppose this ban because it will imperil the lives of women who have been entrusted to their care. ACOG has stated its position that intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is “inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous" (ACOG, 2003). If this ban is ever enforced, doctors will be jailed for providing the best and safest health care to women (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, S.3, 2003). George W. Bush has said he will sign the bill (Bush, 2003a). October 28, 2003 – Anti-choice hardliners resort to intimidation tactics to pressure scientists to abandon research on AIDS, sexuality, and high-risk behaviors The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reacted to a recent hearing cosponsored by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (NIH, 2003)
22
by putting more than 150 scientists on notice that lawmakers are taking a skeptical look at their NIH-funded research on AIDS, sexuality, and highrisk behaviors (Weiss, 2003). At the October 2 hearing, Rep. Michael Ferguson (R-NJ) asked NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni to provide information about the benefits of certain research projects (Zitner, 2003). House Energy and Commerce Committee Spokesman Ken Johnson, who said the list of scientists was created by the right-wing Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), claims that he only meant to request information on 10 NIH-funded projects but that a staff member had mistakenly provided the list of 150 scientists to Zerhouni (Zitner, 2003). Andrea Lafferty, the TVC executive director, told the Associated Press that “millions and millions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet over years on this HIV, AIDS scam and sham" (Johnston, 2003). Representative Henry A. Waxman (DCA) has demanded that “Republicans stop their witch hunt against researchers and research projects that don't meet ideological litmus tests” (Zitner, 2003). November 5, 2003 — President signs abortion ban, the first federal legislation since Roe v. Wade to criminalize abortion, imperiling women’s health Surrounded by smiling men and not a woman in sight, President Bush signed into law a dangerous abortion ban that will harm women and that ignores a woman’s constitutional right to make decisions about her own body. In enacting this law, Congress demonstrated its willingness to sacrifice women's health and legitimate medical science at the altar of anti-choice zealotry. It represents one more step in the effort to undermine reproductive rights, with the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade and abolishing safe, legal abortion. For the first time since Roe, a federal law criminalizes abortion procedures (Bush, 2003b). In addition to defending this blatantly unconstitutional ban, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has assigned responsibility for its enforcement to the justice department’s civil rights division (Egelko, 2003). This move attempts to broaden the civil rights protection of fetuses, while creating a potential conflict of interest for the division’s criminal section, which is responsible for prosecuting those who block access to abortion clinics. Pro-choice members of congress protested Ashcroft’s decision in a letter to the attorney general, noting that “it is ‘Orwellian’ that you would have the civil rights division enforce a law which has essentially been found by the Supreme Court to violate the civil rights of millions of American women” (Conyers, et al., 2003). November 21, 2003 — Congress aims to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone, restricting access to medical abortion — a safe and medically established procedure
23
In a move designed to further hobble women’s choice, Congress took up considering the “RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2003,” sponsored by Representative Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Senator Sam Brownback (RKA) (H.R.3453/ S.1930). This legislation would suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486), a drug used in medical abortions, while Congress’ General Accounting Office investigates the process that made the drug available in the United States. If enacted, this legislation could remove mifepristone from the market indefinitely. The initial FDA approval process took more than 10 years, and since becoming available in September 2000, mifepristone has been used safely by more than 200,000 American women (Brewer, 2003). Worldwide, availability of mifepristone has enabled millions of women to have access to safe abortions without surgical intervention (Creinin, 2003). Studies also show that mifepristone may be effective in treating prostate and brain cancer, depression, and fibroids (El Etreby, et al., 2000; Lamberts, et al., 1992; Lamberts, et al., 1991; Belanoff, et al., 2002; Eisinger, et al., 2003). Clearly, this legislation, promises to interfere with women’s health care, the practice of medicine, and lifesaving scientific research. January 16, 2004 —The president uses congressional recess to appoint Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit After Charles Pickering’s nomination was blocked by the Senate, the president waited until Congress was not in session to make a recess appointment of the anti-choice hardliner to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, marking only the second time in 20 years that a president has used this power (New York Times, 2004). “The president has confirmed that he has no interest in working in a bipartisan manner to appoint moderate judges who will uphold the law,” Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said (New York Times, 2004). From 1972 to 1980, Pickering served two terms in the Mississippi State Senate, where he voted for a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to ban abortion and voted against state funding for family planning programs (PR Newswire, 2002). Pickering’s resume also includes an abysmal civil rights record. He tried to reduce the sentence of a man who burned a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple, and he has falsely denied affiliation with a white supremacist group (Chicago Tribune, 2004). The appointment, which is valid through January 2005, was made only three days before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. See also May 25, 2001, and January 7, 2003. February 2, 2004 — President budgets for abstinence-only sex education and marriage initiatives, slights family planning
24
According to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, National Public Radio, and the Kennedy School of Government, only 15 percent of Americans favor abstinence-only sex education. Yet the administration’s budget for fiscal year 2005 allocates $273 million — up from about $80 million — for programs teaching young people that “sex outside marriage causes harmful psychological and physical effects” (Population Control, 2004; Washington Post, 2004). The budget also contains several initiatives to promote marriage, including a $240 million program that gives states grants to promote marriages and limit out-of-wedlock births; a $120 million fund for research and pilot programs on marriage promotion; and $50 million to “promote responsible fatherhood” (Reuters, 2004). If the funds earmarked for abstinence-only education had been allocated to Title X instead, more than 4.2 million additional women could obtain much-needed subsidized family planning aid. Instead, the budget freezes funding for Title X at $278 million. If Title X funding had kept pace with medical inflation since 1980, that figure would be almost $643 million. The budget also decreased funding for international family planning, which is already restricted by the global gag rule. The budget continues to block funding to UNFPA (the United Nations Population Fund), a move that has cost the agency nearly $70 million in the past two years (Population Connection, 2004). February 2, 2004 — Administration’s FY 2005 budget earmarks hundreds of millions for “Healthy Marriage” initiative A survey conducted two years ago by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 79 percent of Americans think the government should keep out of programs encouraging people to marry or stay married (Gerstenzang, 2004). Despite public opinion, the administration’s FY 2005 budget took large steps toward funding the $1.5 billion “Healthy Marriage” initiative, setting aside $240 million for a program that gives states grants to promote marriages and limit out-of-wedlock births; $120 million for research and pilot programs on marriage promotion; and $50 million to “promote responsible fatherhood” (Reuters, 2004). “Such programs intrude on personal privacy, may ignore the risk of domestic violence, and may coerce women to marry,” said Timothy J. Casey, a lawyer with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (New York Times, 2004). First introduced in a 2002 welfare reform measure, the “Healthy Marriage” initiative was passed by the House in May 2003 and is currently pending in the Senate (Gorski, 2004). In his January 20 State of the Union address, the president declared, “I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring
25
institutions of our civilization. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage” (Washington Post, 2004). Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the programs promoted in the initiative would not be available to same-sex couples. Said Mark Shields, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign: “We think it’s ironic that while the president is launching this $1.5 billion marriage promotion initiative, his administration is also considering a constitutional amendment that would permanently deny the rights, protections, and stability of marriage to millions of same-sex couples who want to enter into it” (PR Week US, 2004). February 13, 2004 — FDA delays decision on emergency contraception On December 16, 2003, a joint hearing of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs and Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committees voted 24 to 3 to recommend that Plan B® emergency contraception (EC) be made available over the counter (National Public Radio, 2004). Despite the committees’ unanimous agreement that Plan B is safe enough to be sold over the counter, on February 13, 2004, the FDA announced it would delay its decision for 90 days in order to evaluate EC use among teenagers (Nation’s Health, 2004). “[T]his latest announcement raises deep concern that political pressure is being brought to bear on the FDA — and that women’s well-being will suffer as a result,” said Kirsten Moore, president of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project (Associated Press, 2004). Comprehensive scientific data indicates that Plan B is a safe and effective way to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and, in turn, the number of abortions and it is estimated that more than 50,000 abortions were averted in 2000 due to EC (Nation’s Health, 2004). Five states currently allow women to obtain EC from certain pharmacists without a doctor’s prescription. February 20, 2004 — President installs extremist judge William Pryor to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit For the second time in only five weeks, the president used the congressional recess to install an extremist ideologue who had been blocked by the Senate, appointing Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. “William Pryor’s record of undermining civil, constitutional, and human rights demonstrates how far outside the American mainstream he is,” said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (Ascribe News, 2004). Pryor is an anti-choice hardliner who deemed Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law,” claiming it “ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children” (Seattle Times, 2004; New York Times, 2004). Pryor’s record on civil rights is equally distressing. In a Supreme Court brief for a Texas sodomy case, he compared homosexuality to “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia,
26
bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia” (Associated Press, 2004). Pryor also told senators that he rescheduled a family trip to Disney World to avoid “Gay Days” (Seattle Times, 2004). “Judicial activists like Mr. Pryor are committed to an ideological agenda … that would roll back the hard-won rights of consumers, minorities, women, and Americans with disabilities,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (U.S. Newswire, 2004). February 24, 2004 — President calls for constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage The president took a major swipe against civil rights and the right to privacy by calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. “Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (Hunt, 2004). Numerous Supreme Court decisions have upheld the individual’s right to make decisions about having and raising children and basic family and personal relationships. “In more than 200 years of American history, it has never been necessary to use the Constitution to deny basic rights,” said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign (Toner, 2004). February 26, 2004 — House passes legislation granting rights to fetus In another attempt to erode Roe v. Wade, the House voted 254-163 to pass H.R. 1997, the so-called “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” which gives a zygote, embryo, or fetus the same legal rights as a person (Associated Press, 2004). Under this legislation, a person could be charged with two murders for killing a woman and her fetus, or with murder for an attack in which the fetus is killed but the woman survives. The House rejected by a vote of 229-186 alternate legislation proposed by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), which would have increased penalties for attacks leading to the termination of a fetus without conferring separate legal rights to the fetus. H.R. 1997 defines “unborn child” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb” (CNN.com, 2004). “[H.R. 1997] is not about women and it is not about children,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). “It’s about politics” (CNN.com, 2004). The House passed similar bills in 1999 and 2001. March 5, 2004 — Judge Denies DOJ’s Request for Planned Parenthood Medical Records
27
Federal district judge Phyllis J. Hamilton quashed a request from the Department of Justice (DOJ) demanding access to the medical records of 2,700 women who had abortions at six Planned Parenthood affiliates and a public hospital in San Francisco. “There is no question that the patient is entitled to privacy and protection,” said Judge Hamilton. “Women are entitled to not have the government looking at their records” (Lichtblau and Pear, 2004). In a White House press release dated April 14, 2001, the president affirmed “the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private” and stated that “improving our health care system while protecting the confidentially of patient records will continue to be an important goal of my administration” (Morrison, 2004). DOJ lawyers contended that they needed the records to defend the abortion ban that was signed into law on November 5, 2003. “People’s medical records should not be tools of political operatives,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY). “All Americans should have the right to visit their doctor and receive sound medical attention without the fear of Big Brother looking into those records” (Crary, 2004). March 11, 2004 — United States attempts to block Latin American efforts to reaffirm Cairo Consensus At a meeting of the Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean, in Santiago, Chile, all country delegations with the exception of the United States agreed to a declaration reaffirming the Cairo consensus on population development (Snyder, 2004). The objections of the U.S. to the declaration included the absence of the mention of abstinence; the inclusion of adolescent rights to reproductive health services without parents as primary decision makers; and the use of the terms "reproductive rights," "reproductive health," and "sexual health” (ECLAC, 2004a). The U.S. also attempted to delete references to families "in all their various forms," a move clearly aimed at the administration's effort to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage (ECLAC, 2004b). Ultimately, all attempts by the U.S. to weaken the document were rebuffed. Instead, countries submitted language to strengthen the declaration. In the end, the declaration pointed to the dangers of unsafe abortions and called on donor countries to address the problem. It also called for gender equity and a broader recognition of adolescent rights (Snyder, 2004). March 25, 2004 — “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” passes Senate, grants fertilized egg legal status distinct from woman
28
Following House passage last month, the Senate voted 61–38 in favor of the so-called “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” [H.R. 1997]. The law will allow federal prosecutors to charge a person with two murders for killing a pregnant woman and her “unborn child,” or with one murder for an assault that causes miscarriage but does not kill the woman. However, because the bill defines the “unborn child” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb,” it gives separate legal protection to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) sponsored an alternate bill, the “Motherhood Protection Act” [S. 2219], that would have granted federal prosecutors the same power to impose increased penalties for violent crimes against pregnant women — but without granting the fetus special legal status. Said Feinstein, “Once you give an embryo at the point of conception all the legal rights of a human being…you’ve created the legal case to go against Roe v. Wade” (Simon, 2004). The Senate rejected Feinstein’s bill, 50–49, along party lines. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced an amendment to the bill that offered protections to women who are victims of violence. These included unemployment compensation for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as well as grants for training and collaboration among child welfare agencies, domestic violence and sexual assault service providers, the courts, and law enforcement agencies (Blumenthal, 2004). This amendment was also rejected, 53–46, along party lines (Fryer, 2004). April 1, 2004 — President signs so-called “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” threatening the foundations of Roe v. Wade Following passage by Congress last month, the president signed H.R. 1997, the so-called “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” into law. Though its proponents claim it protects pregnant women from violence, H.R. 1997 helps create a precedent that recognizes a legal status for a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus separate from the woman in whose body it resides. This, in turn, may help lay the groundwork for a future effort to reverse Roe v. Wade. Alternate bills that would have increased penalties for violence against pregnant women, but without elevating the legal status of the fetus, were defeated in both the House and the Senate (Kian, 2004; Epstein, 2004). Supporters of the measure, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), claim that the bill is about punishing violence against women, and “not about abortion.” But a New York Times editorial cautions, “These promises should be remembered when the law is invoked, as it inevitably will be, in efforts to scale back or end the right to abortion” (New York Times, 2004).
29
May 6, 2004 — FDA ignores own panel of experts, denies over-the-counter status to Plan B® emergency contraception. Disregarding the recommendations of its own independent review board, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied over-the-counter status to Barr Laboratories’ Plan B emergency contraception (EC). The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called the decision “morally repugnant … a tragedy for American women, and a dark stain on the reputation of an evidence-based agency like the FDA” (Kaufman, 2004). On December 16, 2003, a joint hearing of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs and Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee found that Plan B fulfilled all the requirements necessary to obtain over-the-counter status and voted 24 to three in favor of making it available without a doctor’s prescription. EC is currently available without a prescription in five states and 33 countries (Lerner 2004; Rapoport, 2004), and studies have consistently shown that it is a safe and effective way to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy. Research indicates that 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions a year could be prevented through wider availability of EC (Glasier & Baird, 1998; Van Look & Stewart, 1998). June 1, 2004 — Federal judge in San Francisco strikes down federal abortion ban as unconstitutional; decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) v. Ashcroft a victory for women’s rights In a challenge brought by PPFA on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates, the federal abortion ban passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last year was ruled unconstitutional. In her decision in PPFA v. Ashcroft, San Francisco Federal District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton found the law unconstitutional for three reasons: for placing an undue burden on women seeking abortion, for containing language that is unconstitutionally vague, and for lacking a required exception to preserve a woman’s health (Liptak, 2004; PPFA v. Ashcroft, 2004). The ruling prohibits Attorney General John Ashcroft from prosecuting doctors who provide abortion services for Planned Parenthood, whether they are working at Planned Parenthood or elsewhere, as well as doctors to whom Planned Parenthood makes referrals. On March 29, 2003, three federal courts began hearing legal challenges to the ban. Closing arguments in National Abortion Federation (NAF) v. Ashcroft and Carhart v. Ashcroft are expected later in June.
July 6, 2004 — Senate confirms nomination of anti-choice extremist James Leon Holmes to Federal District Court.
30
In a 51 – 46 Senate vote, James Leon Holmes’ nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas was confirmed. Holmes, a former president of Arkansas Right to Life, is a fierce opponent of Roe v. Wade, and has compared abortion to the Holocaust (Lewis 2004). A 1997 article for the Arkansas Catholic Register that Holmes coauthored with his wife asserted that the bible requires “the woman … to place herself under the authority of the man” in marriage (Lewis 2004). Arguing against an exception for victims of rape or incest in a law to ban abortions, Holmes has written “the concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami” (Houston Chronicle 2004). It snows in Miami about once every hundred years (Lewis 2004). However, there are an estimated 25,000 rape-related pregnancies each year in the United States (Houston Chronicle 2004). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called Holmes’ views on abortion, women’s equality, and other topics “way out of line with the mainstream of American thinking” (Babington, 2004). Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said in a statement that “Holmes’ record and extreme views about the role of women and other subjects will make it impossible for many who come before him to believe they will get a fair hearing” (Bolton 2004). July 16, 2004 — Bush administration withholds funding for UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund for third year in a row The U.S. State Department again claimed to find UNFPA in violation of the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion law. Kemp-Kasten states that the U.S. may not give money to organizations or countries that participate in coercive family planning programs or that support forced abortion. The administration claims that since China engages in these practices, and UNFPA supports family planning programs in China, UNFPA is supporting China’s coercive programs (Boucher, 2004). However, multiple investigations — including one by an administration-appointed team — have shown the administration’s claim to be false. In fact, the U.S. report found that UNFPA has created a model program to demonstrate that coercion isn’t necessary to reduce fertility (UNFPA, 2004). Experts at UNFPA estimate that the $34 million appropriated for UNFPA this year could prevent two million unintended pregnancies; 800,000 abortions; 4,700 maternal deaths; and 77,000 infant and child deaths annually (UNFPA, 2004).
31
August 2, 2004 --- Justice Department Files appeal in Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) v. Ashcroft; Continues to pursue unconstitutional Abortion Ban The Justice Department filed an appeal seeking to overturn U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton’s June 1 decision that the federal abortion ban is unconstitutional. Judge Hamilton’s ruling found that the federal ban would “force pregnant women to undergo a procedure that is less safe” and would “interfere with doctors’ medical judgment” (American Health Line, 2004). She found the abortion ban unconstitutional on three grounds: that it was “unconstitutionally vague,” that it imposes an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to a safe abortion, and that it contains no exception to protect women’s health (Richman, 2004). Beth Parker, an attorney for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate in San Francisco, said, “We feel that Judge Hamilton’s opinion was very thorough, very well reasoned and relied heavily on expert testimony. The fact that she found the ban unconstitutional for three separate reasons will provide a great record on appeal” (Chiang, 2004) “The abortion ban is a transparent act of hostility toward women’s health, the right to medical privacy and the Supreme Court of the United States,” PPFA President Gloria Feldt said in a press release (PPFA, 2004). “The court was right to strike down this dangerous law and Attorney General Ashcroft is wrong to squander Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars to fund his anti-choice crusade. Planned Parenthood is fully prepared to go back to court to ensure that this dangerous abortion ban never harms American women.” The federal abortion ban is being challenged in federal court in two more cases: in New York City in National Abortion Federation (NAF) v. Ashcroft and in Lincoln, Nebraska, in Carhart v. Ashcroft. Rulings in those cases are expected later this summer. See also November 5, 2003; June 1, 2003.
August 26, 2004 — Federal judge in New York strikes down unconstitutional federal abortion ban; ruling in National Abortion Federation (NAF) v. Ashcroft echoes June 1 decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) v. Ashcroft U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey in New York declared the federal abortion ban unconstitutional in his ruling in NAF v. Ashcroft. Judge
32
Casey found that the ban, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last year, lacks a required exception to protect a woman’s health (Neumeister, 2004; NAF v. Ashcroft, 2004). Judge Casey is the second judge to find the abortion ban law unconstitutional. On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco also found the law unconstitutional. A decision in Carhart v. Ashcroft, filed in Nebraska by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and other doctors, is expected later this summer.
September 8, 2004 — Third federal court rules federal abortion ban is unconstitutional; decision in Carhart v. Ashcroft echoes rulings in San Francisco and New York U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf of Lincoln, NE, ruled that the federal abortion ban passed by Congress and signed by President Bush last year is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced (Mabin, 2004; Carhart v. Ashcroft, 2004). Judge Kopf’s decision is the third ruling to find the law unconstitutional, following similar judgments earlier this summer in Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Ashcroft and NAF v. Ashcroft. Gloria Feldt, president, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in response to the decision: “Today’s ruling should be a cease and desist order for Attorney General Ashcroft and his taxpayer-funded anti-choice pursuits. Like the San Francisco and New York courts, the Nebraska court recognized that women’s health, medical privacy, and the U.S. constitution trump anti-choice ideology. Women and doctors should make private, personal health care decisions — not John Ashcroft or any other politician” (Associated Press, 2004).
September 27, 2004 — Justice Department files appeal of Nebraska and New York Abortion Ban rulings; Continues to pursue unconstitutional law The Justice Department appealed rulings by federal district courts in Nebraska and New York, which each found that the federal abortion ban signed by Congress and passed by President Bush in 2003 is unconstitutional. Earlier, (August 2, 2004) the Justice Department filed an appeal of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) v. Ashcroft, the June 1 ruling by U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco that also struck down the ban.
33
In the Nebraska ruling, issued on September 8 in Carhart v. Ashcroft, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf found the ban unconstitutional because it lacked a health exception and would impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose because the ban could ban abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks in pregnancy. Kopf wrote that “according to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that point. No reasonable and unbiased person could come to a different conclusion.” (O’Hanlon, 2004; Carhart v. Ashcroft, 2004) Kopf was the third federal judge to find the law unconstitutional. His ruling followed the August 26 decision in National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft and the June 1 decision in PPFA v. Ashcroft. The New York court struck down the law, finding that “[t]he lack of a health exception also renders this Act unconstitutional” (National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, 2004). Priscilla Smith, the lead attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, who represented the Nebraska plaintiffs including Dr. LeRoy Carhart, said, “Their agenda has been to try to take this thing as far as they can to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in 2000 that held a nearly identical bill unconstitutional — and ultimately to reverse Roe v. Wade. That’s the Bush administration’s tactic.” (O’Hanlon, 2004) See also November 5, 2003; June 1, 2003; August 2, 2004; August 26, 2004; September 8, 2004.
October 1, 2004 — Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage fails to garner necessary votes in House; follows defeat of amendment in Senate A proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage failed to garner enough House votes to advance. Though the majority of lawmakers supported the bill, the 227-186 vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment. This defeat follows a July 14 vote in the Senate, where the amendment was defeated 48-50 in a procedural vote (Simon, 2004). The Federal Marriage Amendment specified that marriage in the United States “shall consist only of a man and a woman” and would have mandated that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution “shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman” (Abrams, 2004).
34
In a statement, President Bush said he was disappointed in the vote and urged that “we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage” (Mulkern, 2004). The Constitution has been amended only 27 times in its history, including the 10 amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. Proposed amendments must win two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress and be ratified by 38 state legislatures in order to be incorporated in the Constitution (Abrams, 2004; Puzzanghera, 2004).
October 7, 2004 – Congress denies funding for military women seeking abortion after rape or incest, strips bipartisan Boxer-Snowe amendment from Department of Defense Authorization Bill Before voting on the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, House and Senate conferees dropped a provision that would have ensured that women soldiers who are rape or incest survivors would have access to and funding for abortion. The bipartisan amendment, authored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), would have given servicewomen the same benefits as civilian Medicaid recipients, who receive public funding for abortion procedures when a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (Los Angeles Times, 2004). Since 1995, federal law has mandated that “no medical treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense may be used to perform an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered … or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest” (Kian, 2004). Abortions necessary to save the life of the woman are covered by military insurance, but military doctors will perform an abortion for a rape or incest survivor only if the woman pays (Los Angeles Times, 2004). In other cases, military women who choose abortion must seek out private clinics to provide the service, no easy matter in many of the countries where U.S. soldiers are stationed today, such as Afghanistan and Iraq (Susman, 2004). A 2003 study found that 30 percent of female U.S. military veterans reported that they were survivors of rape or rape attempts during their terms of service. Department of Defense statistics also reveal that between three and six percent of active-duty women report having been sexually assaulted, and that the number of reported rape cases rose from 356 in 1999 to 469 in 2003 (U.S. Newswire, 2004). November 20, 2004 – Amendment to budget measure allows health care entities to refuse to comply with existing laws and regulations pertaining to
35
abortion; so-called “Abortion Non-Discrimination Act” threatens women’s health The so-called “Abortion Non-Discrimination Act” (ANDA) – an amendment to the $388 billion FY05 omnibus appropriations bill passed in the House and Senate – has the potential to gravely hinder a woman’s access to safe and legal abortion. The amendment, added to the appropriations bill by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), would allow health care entities – including individual providers, hospitals, HMOs, insurance providers, or any other type of health care facility – to refuse to comply with existing federal, state, and local laws relating to abortion for any reason. “This amendment’s name makes it sound like it protects women from discrimination who are seeking abortions. In fact, it discriminates against them,” said PPFA President Gloria Feldt (PPFA Press Release, 2004). In a significant intrusion into states’ rights, any federal agency or program or state or local government that tries to enforce laws and regulations that protect women’s access to abortion information and services would put itself at risk of losing federal funding. For example, four states now use Medicaid programs to help low-income women pay for abortion. ANDA allows hospitals to refuse to comply with state requirements to provide these services (BestWire, 2004; Kuhnhenn, 2004). Laws that require clinics and other providers to tell women facing an unplanned pregnancy that abortion is among their options would be more difficult to enforce (Associated Press Washington Dateline, 2004). “[ANDA] is essentially a domestic gag rule, restricting access to abortion counseling, referral, and information,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). “Health care companies should not be able to prevent doctors from giving medically necessary information” (Associated Press Washington Dateline, 2004). Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), another opponent of the bill, will propose a bill that would repeal ANDA after the Senate reconvenes in January (New York Times, 2004). “The way we’re going to try to get this appealed,” she said, “is to shine the light of truth on what it does to women. It puts them in grave danger” (Vitucci, 2004).
December 1, 2004 — Congressional Report Finds Abstinence-Only Sex Education Contains False and Misleading Information Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) study is the first to review the curricula of government-funded abstinence-only programs, which will receive $168 million in funding in FY05 (Wagle, 2004). The Content of Federally
36
Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs examined the 13 most popular curricula used by grantees of the largest federal abstinence initiative, SPRANS (Special Programs of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education.). Eleven of these programs, used by more than two-thirds of SPRANS grantees, contained “false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health” (U.S. House of Representatives, 2004). The report found that abstinence-only curricula • misrepresent the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infection and pregnancy • distort and inflate the risks of abortion • blur religion and science by presenting religious views as though they were scientific fact • treat stereotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact • contain false and misleading information about the risks of sexual activity • contain basic scientific errors These errors, the report stated, “may help explain why these programs have not been shown to protect adolescents from sexually transmitted diseases and why youth who pledge abstinence are significantly less likely to make informed choices about precautions when they do have sex” (U.S. House of Representatives, Wingfield, 2004). December 31, 2004 — Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women omits emergency contraception from rape-treatment protocols The U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women issued its first medical guidelines for the treatment of sexual assault survivors (McCullough, 2004). Though the report contains extensive information about other aspects of treatment and care, it includes only one vague sentence on pregnancy prevention: “Discuss treatment options with patients, including reproductive health services” (Crary 2005). Nowhere does it mention emergency contraception (EC). Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) contain hormones that reduce the risk of pregnancy when started within 120 hours (five days) of unprotected intercourse — though the treatment is more effective the sooner it begins. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that the medication be offered to all sexual assault victims at risk of pregnancy (Crary, 2005). According to experts involved in the process, emergency contraception was included in an earlier draft (McCullough, 2004). Apparently, it was deliberately removed.
37
A total of 278 groups have asked the Justice Department to amend the protocol to include pregnancy prevention (Kerr, 2005). Many of those groups have religious affiliations, including the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office, Union of Reform Judaism, and the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness ministries (U.S. Newswire, 2005). Rev. Carlton Veazey, president, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, decried the Justice Department’s report: “Opposition to emergency contraception comes from the most extreme right-wing groups.... Their view is not only unscientific, but it is also immoral. Providing information and counseling about emergency contraception would help rape victims prevent the trauma of unintended pregnancies, avoid abortions, and safeguard their reproductive and mental health” (U.S. Newswire, 2005). Though EC is the best way to prevent pregnancy in cases of rape or incest, only five states require hospital staff to inform sexual assault survivors about the medication (Philadelphia Inquirer, 2005). A recent ACLU-sponsored study of emergency care facilities in 11 states found that many do not consistently offer the option of EC to rape victims, and some rarely do: only six percent of facilities in Louisiana routinely provide EC (Crary, 2005). January 21, 2005 — FDA misses deadline for ruling on over-the-counter status of Plan B emergency contraception; delays decision indefinitely In a highly unusual move, the FDA missed its January 20 deadline to rule on whether to make Plan B emergency contraception (EC) available without a prescription, over the counter, for women 16 and older. The agency indicated that review of the medication is expected to be completed in the near future but did not specify a date (PR Newswire, 2005). This delay follows a May 6, 2004, ruling denying over-the-counter (OTC) status for the medication, despite the overwhelming recommendations of the FDA’s own experts. The acting director of the FDA’s drugs division cited concerns about the medication’s use by young teenagers. Accordingly, Barr laboratories, Plan B’s manufacturer, submitted a revised application last July, requiring a prescription for women younger than 16. Some are skeptical about the motives behind the decision. An internal memo from John Jenkins, director of the FDA’s Office of New Drugs, pointed out that the agency had never before drawn a distinction between different age groups in considering contraceptive hormones (Baer, 2005).
38
Those who oppose making the medication more readily available assert that easy access to EC will lead to more risky sexual behavior. But a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) refutes this claim, reporting that women who had EC on hand or could access it without a prescription did not manifest an increased rate of unprotected sex or sexually transmitted infections (Raine, 2005; Lab Business Week, 2005). The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion could be reduced by half if EC were readily available and regularly used (Stuart, 2005). See also December 16, 2003; February 13, 2004; May 6, 2004. February 7, 2005 — Proposed FY 2006 federal budget increases funding for dangerous, ineffective abstinence-only education, shortchanges Medicaid Despite no proof of the programs' effectiveness, President Bush's proposed FY 2006 budget requests an additional $39 million for abstinence-only sex education programs. If the request is granted, the federal government will spend nearly $206 million on abstinence-only programs in the coming fiscal year (U.S. Newswire, 2005). In order to qualify for federal funding, abstinence-only education programs must teach students that abstinence is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted infection. Contraception may only be discussed in terms of failure rates (Kristof, 2005). A report released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) on December 1, 2004, found that many abstinence-only curricula contained false or misleading information about the effectiveness of condoms, the risks of abortion, and the risks of sexual activity (Wingfield, 2004). The budget also proposes $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade (Pear, 2005). "For millions of women and families, Medicaid offers the only access to basic health care services, including essential services such as family planning," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America Interim President Karen Pearl. "Publicly funded family planning services prevent 1.3 million unintended pregnancies and more than 600,000 abortions a year." (PPFA Press Statement, 2005). See also October 11, 2001; February 3, 2003; February 2, 2004; December 1, 2004.
39
February 14, 2005 — President George W. Bush re-nominates seven candidates to federal courts who were blocked by the Senate in his first term for their extremist ideology President George W. Bush nominated 20 candidates to U.S. Courts of Appeals; judicial nominees must be confirmed in the Senate. During his first term, seven of these nominees were blocked by Senate filibuster due to their extreme right-wing ideology; five more were opposed but not blocked (Hulse, 2005). Planned Parenthood formally opposed three of these nominees — Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Judge Priscilla Richman Owen, and Judge William H. Pryor — because of their radical anti-choice rulings and opinions. The only thing that prevented these judges from confirmation was the use of the filibuster. Now Senate Republican leaders have threatened to deploy the so-called "nuclear option" -- changing Senate rules to end a filibuster by a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes currently needed (Perine, 2005). This is despite the high confirmation rate of Bush's judicial nominees. Of the 214 judges nominated during his first term, 204 -- 95 percent -- were confirmed (Neas, 2005). By contrast, 35 percent of President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees were rejected in the last six years of his term (Neas, 2005). Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) commented, "The president is at it again with the extremist judges.... We should not divert attention from other pressing issues facing this nation to re-debate the merits of nominees already found too extreme by this chamber" (Hulse, 2005). See also May 9, 2001; January 7, 2003; February 20, 2004. April 5, 2005 — Senate votes to end "global gag rule"; Boxer-Snowe amendment would lift restrictions on international family planning funding The Senate voted 52-46 to pass the bipartisan Boxer-Snowe amendment to the State Department Reauthorization Bill to repeal the global gag rule. The gag rule denies U.S. family planning funds to foreign organizations and nongovernmental organizations that counsel, perform, or advocate for abortion, even if they do so using their own money. The amendment, sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Olympia Snowe (RME), would restore foreign aid to fund family planning groups that provide care for some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable citizens. (Guggenheim, 2005; Detroit Free Press, 2005). Snowe said, "This is not a question of performing or promoting abortion overseas — since at least 1973, it has been illegal to spend taxpayer dollars on such activities, and no violation has ever been reported — this
40
is a question of making sensible medical care available to women" (US Fed News, 2005). The global gag rule — also known as the "Mexico City Policy" — was first imposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It was suspended by President Bill Clinton in 1993 but reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001. The Bush administration expanded the gag rule to apply to the entire $8 billion State Department budget (Agence France Presse, 2005). The amendment will now be sent to the House, which has consistently voted to maintain the restrictions, and President Bush has threatened to veto any bills overturning the gag rule (Guggenheim, 2005). Boxer said, "At a time when we are trying to promote the best of our democracy abroad, the last thing we need is to export unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. It is not only hypocritical, but it is bad foreign policy" (States News Service, 2005). April 14, 2005 — Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA) introduced in House and Senate; requires pharmacies to ensure that all prescriptions are filled without delay In response to reports from across the country of women being denied birth control by pharmacists, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced legislation, the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA), requiring pharmacies to ensure that all prescriptions are filled without delay (Royce, 2005). Rep. Maloney said, "Around the country, women are walking into pharmacies with legal prescriptions to be filled and walking out with nothing. That's not what should happen when you go to a drug store.... Access to birth control is a women's health issue and a private matter, not to be tampered with by a pharmacist with an agenda" (US Fed News, 2005). ALPhA would not require an individual pharmacist to dispense medications that violate his or her religious or moral beliefs. If a pharmacist objects to filling a prescription, another pharmacist at the same pharmacy would be required to fill the prescription. The bill would also forbid pharmacists from "harass[ing] or humiliat[ing]" or otherwise "deterring" customers attempting to fill prescriptions. Pharmacies that regularly stock prescription contraceptives would be required to order emergency contraception "without delay," if requested by a customer (American Health Line, 2005).
41
Lawmakers in 22 states have introduced refusal clauses, allowing pharmacists to deny patients medication because of personal beliefs, and three states already have these laws on the books. Four states have legislation pending that would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives (De La Cruz, 2005). April 27, 2005 — Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act passes in House, endangering teens' health and criminalizing adults and doctors who help pregnant teens obtain abortions across state lines In a 270-157 vote, the House of Representatives passed the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). The law has two parts: the first would make it a federal crime for any person other than a parent — including a grandmother, aunt, or older sibling — to assist a minor in crossing state lines to access abortion services. The second would forbid an abortion provider from terminating a pregnancy for an out-of-state minor without first notifying her parent or legal guardian and would impose a minimum 24-hour waiting period, even if the young woman seeking care is accompanied by her parents. CIANA would subject an abortion provider to three sets of laws: the parental consent or notice law of the minor’s state of residence; the law of the state where the abortion is performed, and this new federal requirement of parental notification. (Goodman, 2005). Violators are subject to a $100,000 fine and a year in jail (Allen, 2005). "Girls find an adult they can talk to ... and now they're going to make that person a criminal, when they're trying to do right by the young person in their lives," said JoAnn Smith, interim president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Nassau County. "It's setting these kids up to not tell anybody about what's happening" (McCarthy, 2005). An amendment exempting grandparents and clergy members from prosecution was defeated. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), who opposed CIANA, said, "Under this legislation, [young women] who feel they cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for themselves without any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek unsafe abortions close to home. Others will travel to unfamiliar places seeking abortions by themselves" (Stolberg, 2005). May 12, 2005 — Senators call for HHS investigation into memo opposing over-the-counter status for emergency contraception written by anti-choice FDA advisory committee member Dr. David Hager
42
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) asked Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt to launch an investigation into reports that David Hager, an anti-choice physician, was asked by someone at the FDA to write a so-called "minority report" opposing over-the-counter status for Plan B emergency contraception. In December 2003, an FDA panel of experts voted 23 to four in favor of making Plan B available without a prescription; Hager cast one of the dissenting votes (Drug Industry Daily, 2005). Yet the FDA overruled the advice of the overwhelming majority of its own experts and rejected overthe-counter status for the medication (Katz, 2005). In a videotaped sermon delivered last October at Asbury College chapel in Kentucky, Hager, an evangelical Christian, disclosed, "I was asked to write a minority opinion that was sent to the commissioner of the FDA. For only the second time in five decades, the FDA did not abide by its advisory committee opinion, and the measure was rejected. ... God took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision. Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good" (Kaufman, 2005). Hager will not reveal the identity of the person who asked him to write the report (Silberner, 2005). In an e-mail to The Washington Post, Hager claimed it was someone "outside the agency." He had previously told journalists an FDA staff member had requested the report (Kaufman, 2005). In their call for an investigation, Senators Clinton and Murray stated, "...if substantiated, these allegations seem to leave little doubt that the process for considering Barr Laboratories' application was based not on science, but on personal beliefs" (Drug Industry Daily, 2005). Hager, who opposes contraception for unmarried women and prescribes scriptural readings as treatment for premenstrual syndrome, has said he will not seek reappointment to the FDA reproductive drugs panel after his term ends on June 30 (FDA Week, 2005; American Health Line, 2005). May 23, 2005 — U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review constitutionality of New Hampshire parental notification law; Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England decision could affect future laws restricting abortion In an unexpected move, the Supreme Court announced it would review a decision by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that determined that a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification for minors seeking abortion was unconstitutional. The circuit court's decision affirmed an earlier district court ruling.
43
The law, which is not currently being enforced (Health Law Week, 2005), would require health care providers to notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before providing an abortion to a minor. It was struck down because it lacks an exception to protect a woman's health, in violation of the 2000 Supreme Court decision Stenberg v. Carhart (Broida, 2005; Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000). The law, according to the circuit court ruling, would force physicians "to gamble with their patient's lives ... [or] risk criminal and civil liability" (Savage, 2005). The Supreme Court will most likely hear oral argument in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England this fall (Lane, 2005). In deciding the case, the justices could rule on two issues: what the legal standard should be in reviewing challenges to laws restricting abortion, and whether laws restricting abortion must include an exemption to protect a woman's health (Greenhouse, 2005; Savage, 2005). Whatever the final ruling, the court's decision could have a huge impact on the restrictions that can be imposed on women's access to abortion. May 25, 2005 — Amendment to allow women to use their own funds to access abortion services available at military hospitals overseas defeated in House In a 233 to 194 vote, the House defeated an amendment that would have allowed women to access abortion services at military hospitals overseas if they paid for those services with their own money. The amendment, sponsored by Representatives Susan Davis (D-CA), Jane Harman (DCA), and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), stipulated that the procedure must be paid for by the patient, not by the government. Currently, military doctors are prohibited from performing abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is endangered (Werner, 2005). Women stationed in foreign countries are forced to seek abortions in public or private hospitals off the grounds of the military base. But for many of the more than 100,000 American women living on overseas bases, safe abortion services may not be accessible or available in the nations in which they are stationed (New York Times, 2005). Rep. Davis asked, "We ask women to put their lives at risk for our freedom, so why is it we do not support them when they require safe and legal medical services?" (New York Times, 2005). "This amendment does not force military doctors to perform abortions and it does not place an undue focus on the procedure in such facilities because abortions in the case of incest, rape, or life endangerment are already performed there," said Rep. Harman. "What this amendment does is give servicewomen and female military dependents stationed
44
abroad the same constitutional rights as women living here" (Harman, 2005). May 25, 2005 — Extremist Justice Priscilla Owen confirmed to Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals The Senate voted 55–43 to confirm extremist Justice Pricilla Owen to a lifetime appointment to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which hears cases from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Owen was first nominated to the court in 2001 but was defeated in committee. Her nomination in 2003 was blocked by Senate filibuster (Reynolds and Simon, 2005). The May 23 bipartisan deal struck to preserve the filibuster from the Republican-led threat to eliminate it cleared the way for her nomination to come to the floor for a vote. As a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, Owen demonstrated an extreme callousness to the concerns of minors seeking abortions. Texas law requires parental notification before a minor may obtain an abortion but provides the option of a "judicial bypass" to waive the requirement in cases where in cases where the minor is mature enough to decide about the abortion on her own or parental involvement may not be in a minor's best interest. In six out of seven cases, Owen voted to deny a minor's judicial bypass (PPFA News Release, 2005). She justified her position by arguing "that some women have experienced severe remorse and regret" after having an abortion, and "that there are philosophic, social, moral, and religious arguments" to be considered (Kirkpatrick, 2005). "In case after case, Justice Owen comes to conclusions that are simply not justified by the facts or the law," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), a judiciary committee member. "And these decisions consistently come down against consumers, against workers, and against women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to choice" (Angle, 2005). June 8, 2005 — Extremist Justice Janice Rogers Brown confirmed to U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit In a 56–43 vote, the Senate confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown was first nominated to the court in 2003 but had been blocked by Senate filibuster because of her extremist ideology and willingness to apply it to her judicial opinions. The May 23 bipartisan deal struck to preserve the filibuster from the Republican-led threat to eliminate it cleared the way for her nomination to come to the floor for a vote (Goldman, 2005).
45
A justice on the California Supreme Court since 1996, Brown's rulings have been consistently hostile to civil rights, minority protections, and women's rights (Lochhead, 2005). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told the Senate, "On far too many occasions, she has issued legal opinions based on her personal beliefs, rather than existing legal precedent" (States News Service, 2005). Referring to Brown's lone dissent to a 2004 decision to uphold the Women's Contraception Equity Act, California's contraceptive equity law (U.S. Newswire, 2005), PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl said, "Brown ... has shown disregard for women's health and safety and hostility to anti-discrimination laws that would protect women's access to comprehensive health care" (PPFA Statement, 2005). Only the U.S. Supreme Court is considered more influential than the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) noted that Brown "has repeatedly assailed protections for the elderly, for workers, for the environment, and for victims of racial discrimination." With Brown's appointment to the court, "she will be newly empowered to destroy those protections" because the DC Circuit "has special jurisdiction over protections for the environment, consumers, workers, and women" (Babington, 2005). June 9, 2005 — Extremist Judge William H. Pryor confirmed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit In a 53–45 vote, the Senate confirmed extremist former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The Atlanta court handles federal appeals from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Pryor, previously blocked for his extreme views, has served on the court since February 2004, thanks to a presidential recess appointment (Holland, 2005). His term would have ended this year, but the May 23 bipartisan deal struck to preserve the judicial filibuster cleared the way for his re-nomination to come to the floor for a vote. Pryor has called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law," which has "led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children" (Rankin, 2005). Pryor also opposes Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law. In a statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said Pryor "would deny certain Americans the equal protection of the laws, and would subject the most private of their behaviors to public regulation" (States News Service, 2005).
46
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said of Pryor, "he does not have the openmindedness and fairness to be a federal judge.... Mr. Pryor is not a nominee within the legal mainstream" (Rankin, 2005). June 16, 2005 — House denies funding for UNFPA, United Nations Population Fund, withholding vital family planning services for the world's poorest and most vulnerable women The House of Representatives voted 233–192 to defeat an amendment that would have provided vital U.S. funding to UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and cosponsored by Reps. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Steve Israel (D-NY), and Christopher Shays (R-CT), would have restored funding that has been withheld from the organization for the past three years due to groundless allegations that UNFPA supports coercive abortion and sterilization in China. UNFPA is the only multilateral agency dedicated to providing voluntary family planning and lifesaving reproductive health care services around the world. "UNFPA is on the front lines, providing birth control, HIVprevention methods, prenatal care and delivery assistance in parts of the world where health care is scarce," said PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl. "The U.S. government should be applauding UNFPA, not denying it funds based on false pretenses" (PPFA News Release, 2005). According to UNFPA estimates, restored U.S. funding would prevent two million unintended pregnancies, nearly 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, and 77,000 infant and child deaths every year (PPFA News Release, 2005). Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) countered the accusations leveled against the UNFPA's practices in China: "Those charges have been proven false by the three-person team appointed by the administration that returned from China in 2002.... Since 1999, 60 delegations and 145 diplomats from around the world have visited UNFPA's China program. None of them have found any evidence that UNFPA is doing anything other than making the situation better. Family planning reduces abortions. It is that simple" (States News Service, 2005). Zhang Yishan, deputy Chinese ambassador to the U.N., has testified that in the 32 counties in China where UNFPA pilot programs were conducted, maternal mortality has declined significantly and HIV/AIDS awareness has increased (Lederer, 2005). In response to the vote, Maloney said, "Our nation could have once more been the leader in helping the world's most impoverished women, children, and families, but Congress failed to meet that noble goal.... Many in Washington talk endlessly about compassion, and this was a chance to
47
show true compassion to the world's women, children, and families" (US Fed News, 2005). June 21, 2005 — Legislation introduced in House endangers teens' health, would require parental notification before Title X-funded clinics could distribute contraception to minors Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced legislation that would require health care providers receiving Title X family planning funding to notify parents at least five business days prior to distributing contraception to minors. Similar legislation was introduced in the House by Rep. Todd Akin (RMO). (Helm, 2005). The bill would affect 4,400 health centers, which provide medical and reproductive health services to approximately five million women across the country each year (Brogan, 2005). If it were to become law, the legislation would likely result in more unintended pregnancies among adolescents, as well as increased rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which surveyed sexually active adolescent girls seeking services at Wisconsin family planning clinics, found that 47 percent said they would stop accessing all reproductive health care services from the clinic if they were forced to notify their parents. An additional 12 percent said they would stop using some reproductive health care services, or would put off testing or treatment for STIs. Of the teens who said they would stop or delay accessing services, only one percent said they would stop having sex (Reddy et al., 2002). PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl said, "This legislation puts youth at risk for unintended pregnancies, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. This bill drives young people away from contraceptives, but they will still have sex. Sen. Coburn is pursuing an ideological agenda and he is patently wrong" (Brogan, 2005). July 19, 2005 — Family planning foe attacks global fistula-prevention efforts; amendment to State Department Authorization bill that does not recognize central role of contraception in obstetric fistula prevention efforts passes in House An amendment removing contraceptive supplies from the list of services funded in efforts to prevent obstetric fistula passed with a 223 to 205 vote in the House of Representatives (Philadelphia Inquirer, 2005). The amendment to the State Department Authorization bill (H.R. 2601), proposed by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), overhauled an earlier version of the
48
measure that would have made expanding access to contraception a cornerstone of fistula prevention efforts. Obstetric fistula affects between 50,000 and 100,000 women each year, most of them young women in the developing world. Fistula develops when a woman experiences prolonged and obstructed labor and has no access to medical care. The woman is left chronically incontinent as a result of her injuries. Women suffering from fistula are frequently shunned by their husbands, families, and communities. The World Health Organization estimates that more than two million women currently live with obstetric fistula, even though up to 90 percent of cases can be successfully repaired surgically (Africa News, 2005). Fistula is not only treatable, it is also preventable. According to UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, delaying early pregnancy, spacing births, and limiting the total number of pregnancies can significantly reduce the incidence of fistula. Smith's proposed amendment made prevention optional and deleted language that explicitly expanded access to contraception, only to replace it with a provision to expand abstinence education, efforts to postpone marriage and childbearing, and unspecified family planning services. During debate, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said, "Why is he [Rep. Smith] against birth control? .... This amendment will undermine one of the most effective methods of fistula prevention, helping to delay pregnancy among married young women whose bodies have not fully developed." (Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Congressional Record 151, 2005). August 26, 2005 — FDA indefinitely delays decision on over-the-counter status for Plan B emergency contraception; agency had pledged to issue a decision by September 1 Citing "many difficult and novel policy and regulatory issues," FDA Commissioner Dr. Lester Crawford announced that the agency would indefinitely postpone its ruling on making Plan B emergency contraception (EC) available without a prescription (States News Service, 2005). Although the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research "has concluded that the available scientific data are sufficient to support the safe use of Plan B as an over the counter product," Crawford called for 60 days of public comment, which only serves to unnecessarily delay the application further (" States News Service, 2005; Neergaard, 2005). Crawford had pledged a September 1 deadline for the decision as a condition of assuming leadership of the FDA. In response to his announcement of a continued delay, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) said,
49
"This is not only a broken promise to us, but another frightening example of politics trumping science at the FDA" (Kaufman, 2005). The U.S. Government Accountability Office has been investigating the FDA's delays in evaluating over-the-counter status for Plan B since June 2004 (Sacramento Bee, 2005). In December 2003, an FDA expert advisory committee voted 23 to four to make the medication available without a prescription (Harris, 2005). More than 70 major medical and public health groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have recommended that EC be granted over-the-counter status. The medication is available without a prescription in eight U.S. states and 39 countries (CRR, 2004; USA Today, 2005; Greenberger, 2005). However, anti-choice extremist organizations, along with 46 antichoice members of Congress, have written to the president to oppose easier access to Plan B (USA Today, 2005). PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl said, "It is crystal clear that the FDA has chosen politics over legitimate science. ... The FDA has failed its public health responsibilities and has failed women" (Kaufman, 2005). See also February 13, 2004; May 6, 2004; December 31, 2004; January 21, 2005; May 12, 2005. August 31, 2005 — Top FDA official resigns in protest over continued delay in granting over-the-counter status for emergency contraception; Dr. Susan Wood, director of Office of Women's Health, says agency ignored scientific and clinical evidence Dr. Susan Wood resigned in protest from her position as director of the FDA's Office of Women's Health. Voicing concern over the agency's continued delay in issuing a decision about over-the-counter status for Plan B emergency contraception, she wrote, "The recent decision announced by the [FDA] Commissioner [Dr. Lester Crawford] about emergency contraception, which continues to limit women's access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions is contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health" (FDA Week, 2005). Wood said that most FDA employees, including her, were not consulted by Crawford about the agency's decision prior to his announcement (Rubin, 2005). "This is talked about as a delay but, in reality, it's a denial for all women," Wood said (Henderson, 2005). Wood had been director of the Office of Women's Health for nearly five years (Rubin, 2005). A former research scientist at Johns Hopkins
50
University School of Medicine, she wrote in her resignation letter, "I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by professional staff here, has been overruled" (Henderson, 2005). In a statement, Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said, "Science has taken a back seat to politics in the FDA's decisionmaking process for Plan B" (Rubin, 2005). September 16, 2005 — Bush administration blocks $34 million in funding for UNFPA For the fourth year in a row, the Bush administration will not release $34 million in funding appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The administration has denied a total of $127 million in funding for UNFPA (Sacramento Bee, 2005). The administration cited concerns about UNFPA's involvement in coercive abortion and sterilization in China. This accusation has been widely discredited, including by the administration's own State Department investigation, which in 2002 found no evidence that the organization is complicit in China's coercive policies (Lobe, 2005). Instead, the investigation concluded that UNFPA had demonstrated strong opposition to such policies and recommended that funding be released (Lincoln (NE) Journal Star, 2005; Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA). 2005). UNFPA works in 146 countries and territories to promote safe motherhood and reduce maternal mortality, improve access to reproductive health care and voluntary family planning, and prevent unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and HIV/AIDS (UNFPA Press Release," 2005). More than 300 million poor women around the world suffer from illnesses stemming from pregnancy or childbirth; more than half a million of them die every year (Associated Press, 2005). The $34 million in withheld UNFPA funding could prevent an estimated two million unintended pregnancies, 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, and 77,000 infant and child deaths each year (States News Service, 2005). Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) said in a statement, "By refusing the release of funding for UNFPA, the U.S. is saying that we do not care about the reproductive health ... [of] the poorest of women ... around the world" ( States News Service, 2005).
51
The U.S. is the only country ever to deny funding to UNFPA for nonbudgetary reasons in the agency's 36-year history (UNFPA Press Release, 2005). See also July 22, 2002; July 16, 2004; June 15, 2005. September 29, 2005 — Judge John Roberts sworn in as chief justice of the United States; Justice Roberts refuses to state his views on women's right to choose and Roe v. Wade Hours after being confirmed by a Senate vote of 78–22, Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was sworn in as the 17th chief justice of the United States. Justice Roberts' record as a government lawyer for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush raised grave concerns about his judicial philosophy and his commitment to upholding the right to privacy and the right to choose. In a 1981 memo written while he served as special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith, Roberts suggested that "the so-called 'right to privacy' ... is not to be found in the constitution" (Alliance for Justice, 2005; Perine and Stern, 2005). In 1991, while President Bush's deputy solicitor general, he coauthored a brief for Rust v. Sullivan that stated, "we continue to believe that Roe [v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled" (Traister, 2005). Two years later, in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Roberts voluntarily filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of anti-choice protesters who blocked women's access to reproductive health care centers with harassment and threats of violence, arguing that the protesters were not violating women's civil rights (Perine and Stern, 2005). During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Roberts repeatedly refused to clarify his views on Roe or to affirm the decision as settled law (Holland, 2005). Though he said he accepts the existence of a constitutional right to privacy, he declined to specify whether he believes the right protects a woman's right to choose abortion. Senate Judiciary Committee Member Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who voted against Roberts' confirmation, noted the "eerie parallels" between the nominee's testimony and that of Justice Clarence Thomas, a vocal opponent of Roe (Machacek, 2005). In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl urged the Senate to oppose the nomination: "Judge Roberts has refused to state that he accepts and will protect a woman's constitutional right to choose, a right that has been a part of the fabric of our society for almost two generations. ... No one should be confirmed to a lifetime position with the power to take away the right to choose who does not accept that proposition" (PPFA, 2005).
52
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV), who voted against confirmation, said, "At the end of the day, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify confirming him to this lifetime seat" (Holland, 2005). November 14, 2005 — Government Accountability Office report describes FDA denial of over-the-counter status for Plan B emergency contraception as “unusual” After 14 months of investigation, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report detailing its scrutiny of the FDA's May 6, 2004, decision not to approve over-the-counter (OTC) status for Plan B emergency contraception. On that date, the FDA dismissed the advice of its own joint advisory committee, which overwhelmingly supported OTC status for Plan B emergency contraception for women of all ages, and issued a not-approvable letter, citing unprecedented concerns about the use of the medication by younger teens (Neergaard, 2005). The GAO report found that four aspects of the FDA's May 2004 decision to deny OTC status for emergency contraception were “unusual”: • The directors of the Offices of Drug Evaluation, who would normally have been responsible for signing the Plan B action letter, disagreed with the decision and did not sign the not-approvable letter for Plan B. The high-level, political leadership of the FDA was more involved in the review of Plan B than it was in other OTC applications. Conflicting accounts suggest that the decision to deny OTC status for Plan B may have been made before reviews of the application were completed. The rationale for denying OTC status for Plan B — namely, concerns about the impact of OTC access of Plan B on the sexual behavior of younger adolescents and the lack of data specific to younger adolescents — was "novel" and did not follow customary FDA practices. The FDA has not traditionally considered whether younger adolescents would use an OTC product differently than older adolescents and has a “long history” of extrapolating data from older to younger adolescents (United States Government Accountability Office, 2005).
• •
•
Moreover, the GAO report noted that the Plan B decision as not typical of other OTC decisions. Of the 68 OTC applications that were submitted to the FDA between 1994 and 2004, the Plan B application was the only one
53
that was rejected despite the recommendations for approval by the joint advisory committee (United States Government Accountability Office, 2005). The FDA's staff and joint advisory committee reviewed the application for OTC status for Plan B, and both agreed that the medication was safe for OTC use. The joint advisory committee said that OTC status could reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by as much as half (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2005). Susan Wood, the former head of the FDA Office of Women's Health who resigned in protest of the agency's denial of OTC status for emergency contraception, said the report made clear that "[i]nstead of improving and advancing women's health, the FDA leadership is ... not relying on science and medical evidence" (Kaufman, 2005). See also February 13, 2004; May 6, 2004; January 21, 2005; May 12, 2005; August 26, 2005; August 31, 2005. December 22, 2005 — A federal judge allows a lawsuit that questions the government’s failure to issue a decision on over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception (EC) U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman refused to dismiss a lawsuit against the federal government alleging that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to follow its own procedures and ignored a statutory deadline for deciding whether EC could be sold without a prescription (Kerr, 2005; Center for Reproductive Rights Press Release, 2005). The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed the suit in January 2005 on behalf of several health care providers and advocacy organizations that work to reduce unintended pregnancy rates by educating women about EC and increasing access to it (CRR Press Release). Korman disagreed with Assistant U.S. Attorney Franklin Amanat's objections to the lawsuit, and questioned the FDA's failure to make a decision on nonprescription sales. "This has all the earmarks of an administrative agency filibuster,” he said. “There's a serious issue here as to whether they're acting in good faith" (Kerr, 2005). See also February 13, 2004; May 6, 2004; January 21, 2005; May 12, 2005; August 26, 2005; August 31, 2005; November 14, 2005.
January 4, 2006 — President Bush uses the recess appointment to bypass Senate confirmation and name anti-choice Ellen Sauerbrey as the Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.
54
Bush's appointment of Sauerbrey averted a battle with legislators and advocacy groups that protested her nomination (Edsall, 2006; Kessler, 2005; Shaw, 2005). Many expressed concern that her anti-choice, anti-family planning views would threaten access to reproductive health care for refugees, the majority of whom are women and children that are victims of violence and sexual assault (Shaw, 2005; United Nations, 1996). Others were frustrated by her lack of qualifications for the job. Comparing her to Michael Brown, the former director of FEMA who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina, they pointed out that she lacks experience in emergency management and refugee settlement, the key responsibilities for the $700-million bureau (Silverstein, 2005). As the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, Sauerbrey often pushed an anti-choice agenda. Her ideological views took the spotlight at the 10th anniversary of the Beijing World Conference on Women, where she attempted to add language excluding abortion rights from a U.N. declaration supporting equality for women (Silverstein, 2005; Tribune news services, 2005). January 18, 2006 — U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the need for health exceptions in laws restricting abortion in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England but declines to strike down New Hampshire's law. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that, under existing legal precedent, a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification 48 hours before a minor has an abortion is unconstitutional because it lacks exceptions for teenagers facing medical emergencies. However, the court also held that the lower courts might have gone too far in throwing out the entire parental notice law rather than just its application to medical emergency situations. The court sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether a more limited injunction would be in keeping with the New Hampshire legislature’s intent (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England). "We are relieved that the Supreme Court left in place protections for women's health and safety in abortion laws," said Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "We continue to believe that the law should be struck down by the lower court" (PPFA, 2006). See also May 23, 2005. January 21, 2006 — HHS removes website for preventative health information for LGBT people The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took down the website (http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/error/updating.aspx) of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 11 days after the ultraconservative Family Research Council launched an attack on 55
the site through its “Washington Update” e-mail alert. For years, the SAMHSA website has served as a resource for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans on topics such as substance abuse, youth suicide, ethnic and cultural diversity, social support, violence prevention, and homophobia. Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Executive Director Jody Huckaby said, “HHS has removed basic health information on one site at the demands of an extremist group, and has completely omitted all content about GLBT youth on another. This is outrageous and unacceptable” (SIECUS, 2006).
January 26, 2006 — The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the HHS announces that it will continue to fund CommunityBased Abstinence Education Programs, introduces new guidelines New ACF guidelines require programs that receive federal funds to teach that abstinence before marriage guarantees a happier life with greater wealth, healthy children, longer life span, freedom from psychological problems, and better educational opportunities. The guidelines fail to provide evidence to support these claims. The ACF also now requires that programs receiving funds define abstinence as "voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage." Sexual activity is defined as "any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse." Suggestions for staying abstinent include avoiding television and not staying out late. Marriage is defined as "a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife." Programs that receive funding must now sign a statement promising not to provide information about contraception, even if they want to do so with non-government funds. (Signing this statement used to be voluntary.) The new guidelines have increased federal grant periods from one or three years to five years, ensuring these programs are funded through fiscal year 2010. Hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars will support these programs even after President Bush leaves office. One billion federal tax dollars have gone into abstinence-only programs since 1996, and $115 million will be allocated to community-based abstinence education programs in the 2006 fiscal year (SIECUS, 2006). See also December 1, 2004.
January 31, 2006 — Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has a record of hostility toward women's rights and privacy rights, is confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
56
Justice Alito, who refused to consider Roe v. Wade "settled law" during confirmation hearings, was confirmed by the Senate on a party-line vote of 58 to 42 and sworn in as the 110th Supreme Court justice (Goldstein and Babington, 2006). Replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's swing vote on abortion rights and other social issues, Justice Alito is expected to shift the balance of the court to the right (Kirkpatrick, 2006). As a lawyer for President Reagan's Justice Department, Alito wrote a memo in 1985 to then Solicitor General Charles Fried detailing a legal and political strategy aimed at chipping away and eventually overturning the landmark Roe decision (Kirkpatrick, 2005). In an application for a Reagan administration job that same year, Alito wrote that he did not believe the Constitution protects the right to an abortion (Goldstein and Babington, 2006). And in 1991, as a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Alito voted to uphold a Pennsylvania law requiring a woman to notify her husband before having an abortion (Rubinkam, 2006). In confirmation hearings, Democratic senators grilled Alito on the issue of reproductive rights. Alito refused to say that he regards the 1973 Roe decision "settled law" that "can't be reexamined" (Goldstein and Babington, 2006). Women's rights and civil rights groups criticized his confirmation and pledged to make it a core issue in upcoming elections. January 31, 2006 — Two federal courts strike down the Bush administration's federal abortion ban. Both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld lower court decisions striking down the federal abortion ban as unconstitutional. In Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that the federal abortion ban passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003 is unconstitutional for three reasons: it lacks an exception to protect women’s health; it imposes an undue burden on women’s right to choose; and it is unconstitutionally vague. The Ninth Circuit issued the ruling after fully considering the Supreme Court's decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and concluded that the constitutional flaws in the abortion ban could not be corrected by a narrow injunction. They found that the only appropriate remedy was to uphold the district court’s 2003 decision and strike down the law in its entirety (PPFA v. Gonzales, 2006). In National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, two Second Circuit judges held the federal abortion ban unconstitutional because it lacks a health exception. The Second Circuit did not strike down the law in its entirety but asked the two sides to submit supplemental briefs on how to remedy failings in the law (NAF v. Gonzales, 2006). These latest rulings are in addition to a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in July 2005 that the federal abortion ban is unconstitutional. The Bush
57
administration has appealed the Eighth Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court and also is expected to appeal these latest rulings (Goodin, 2006). See also November 5, 2003; June 1, 2004; August 2, 2004; August 26, 2004; September 8, 2004; and Sept. 27, 2004.
February 8, 2006 — President signs the Deficit Reduction Act, which includes significant changes to the Medicaid program; will make it harder for low-income women to access family planning services. The Deficit Reduction Act cut more than $20 billion over the next 10 years from the Medicaid program. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to one in 10 women of reproductive age and pays for more than one-third of all births in the United States. Medicaid provides more publicly funded family planning dollars than any other program. For more than 30 years, federal law required every state to cover family planning services under Medicaid. The Deficit Reduction Act does away with this guarantee, allowing states to eliminate coverage for family planning from their basic benefit packages. See also October 11, 2001; February 3, 2003; February 2, 2004; December 1, 2004.
February 24, 2006 — Federal judge rules that senior FDA officials must testify in the Center for Reproductive Rights' Lawsuit on Plan B emergency contraception (EC) In January 2005, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP), the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and various individuals challenging the FDA's failure to approve the Plan B over-thecounter (OTC) application. The lawsuit was brought on the grounds that by not approving nonprescription (EC) sales, the FDA failed to comply with its statutory duty to approve OTC status for drugs that meet its standards for safety and effectiveness, and violated women's right to equal protection and privacy as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in New York ruled that senior FDA officials must testify in the CRR lawsuit and said, "[I]nquiry about contacts between those outside the agency and those within the agency is appropriate to expose whether improper influences led to the FDA's actions." (Tummino v. von Eschenbach, No.05-366) The CRR had sought depositions of senior FDA officials regarding their decision-making process, and the FDA objected.
58
See also February 13, 2004; May 6, 2004; January 21, 2005; May 12, 2005; August 26, 2005; August 31, 2005; November 14, 2005; December 22, 2005. March 9, 2006 — Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) sends a letter to acting FDA commissioner regarding Plan B over-the-counter application delay Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, sent a letter to acting Director Andrew von Eschenbach regarding the delay in over-the-counter (OTC) status for Plan B emergency contraception. Waxman obtained new documentation that raised additional questions about the FDA's claims that Plan B manufacturer Barr Laboratories' application posed "novel" questions. The documents show that FDA policy staff analyzed and outlined potential solutions to the regulatory questions at least 15 months before the FDA claimed publicly that the questions were so "novel" that they required an indefinite delay. The letter stated, "In essence, the agency was well aware of the regulatory questions that would arise when it suggested age restrictions, but simply did not resolve them in a timely manner." Waxman asked why the FDA is not complying with the Federal Records Act. The FDA failed to turn over relevant documentation to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when the GAO was conducting its investigation into the Plan B OTC delays, claiming that it was FDA policy to delete correspondence from top agency officials on a daily basis and that a backup for those e-mails was only held for 16 days. This was Waxman's second inquiry into this practice, which is against the law. Waxman asked the FDA to address the issues raised in the letter by March 27, 2006. See also February 13, 2004; May 6, 2004; January 21, 2005; May 12, 2005; August 26, 2005; August 31, 2005; November 14, 2005; December 22, 2005; February 24, 2006.)
May 10, 2006 — Amendment to allow women to use their own funds to access abortion services available at military hospitals overseas defeated in House In a 237–191 vote, the House of Representatives defeated an amendment that would have lifted the current ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military health facilities overseas. The amendment, sponsored by Reps. Susan Davis (D-CA), Jane Harman (D-CA), and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), stipulated that the procedure must be paid for by the patient, not by the government. Currently, military doctors are prohibited from performing
59
abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is endangered (Werner, 2005). Women stationed in foreign countries are forced to seek abortions in public or private hospitals off the grounds of the military base. More than 200,000 women serve in the U.S. military and approximately 12,000 currently serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Women in the military are treated as second-class citizens by their own government,” Harman said (Rep. Harman press release, 2006). See also October 7, 2004; May 25, 2005.
June 19, 2006 — U.S. Supreme Court announces it will hear Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, the Bush administration’s appeal of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down the federal abortion ban (Creenhouse, 2006). “This abortion ban would forbid doctors from providing their patients with the care they believe is safest and best, and would give Congress and states a green light to endanger women’s health when they restrict women’s access to abortion,” said Eve Gartner, PPFA senior staff attorney. “This dangerous law should be struck down, sending a message to politicians to stop legislating medicine” (PPFA, 2006). When President Bush signed the ban in 2003, three lawsuits were brought by Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union (on behalf of the National Abortion Federation), challenging it in federal district courts around the country. Every court that has examined the federal abortion ban has struck it down. Major medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose the federal ban. Six years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a similar abortion ban passed by the state of Nebraska (“ACLU and …,” 2005; Perine, 2006). See also January 31, 2006.
July 17, 2006 — Report criticizes so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform, released a report on CPCs that receive federal funding. Investigators, who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds seeking advice about unintended pregnancies, telephoned the 25 pregnancy
60
resource centers that have received capacity-building funds from the Department of Health and Human Services. The report, prepared for Rep. Waxman by the House Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division found that an overwhelming majority (87 percent) of CPCs reached in the investigation provided misleading, medically inaccurate information about abortion, most often in one of three categories: abortion and breast cancer, abortion and infertility, and socalled “post-abortion syndrome.” Since 2001, CPCs have received more than $30 million in federal funding (Committee On Government Reform, 2006). “Planned Parenthood applauds Rep. Waxman for exposing the dangerous nature of so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ and their assault on women’s health,” said Stephenie Foster, PPFA vice president of public policy. “Women who enter crisis pregnancy centers are walking into a trap. There is no excuse for taxpayer dollars going to organizations whose goal is to mislead and mistreat women facing unintended pregnancy” (PPFA, 2006).
July 25, 2006 — Senate approves so-called Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) The so-called Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) (S.403) would make it a federal crime for anyone other than a young woman’s parent — including a grandparent, aunt, or religious counselor — to help a minor cross state lines to obtain an abortion unless the minor first complies with her home state’s mandatory parental involvement law (“FRC: U.S. Senate…,” 2006). Because 87 percent of counties in the United States have no abortion provider, for many women the nearest provider is in another state (Finer and Henshaw, 2003). CCPA does not make an exception for emergencies that threaten severe damage to a minor’s health (Child Custody Protection Act, 2006). “The Senate showed a frightening lack of compassion for American teens and a disturbing willingness to play politics with their health and safety,” said PPFA Vice President of Public Policy Stephenie Foster. “We all want our daughters to come to us, but what is most important is that they are safe. Forbidding young people from turning to trusted family members when they are in crisis does not prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion. Parents need support to keep their kids healthy and safe — not laws that criminalize family members for helping teens get access to good medical care” (PPFA, 2006).
61
August 1, 2006 — FDA delay in deciding whether to grant over-thecounter status to emergency contraception is the focus of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach’s nomination hearing as commissioner of the FDA The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach to be FDA commissioner. Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (DWA) have pledged to maintain a hold on von Eschenbach's nomination until the agency makes a final decision on over-the-counter sales of EC (Pugh, 2006). On December 16, 2003, a joint hearing of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs and Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committees voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the FDA make EC available over the counter (Neergaard, 2003). On May 6, 2004, the FDA notified Barr Laboratories, which manufactures Plan B, that its application for over-the-counter status was denied, citing concerns about adolescent use (Neergaard, 2004). Just one day before the Dr. von Eschenbah's nomination hearing, the FDA announced its intention to continue negotiations with Barr Laboratories to make Plan B available for over-the-counter sale to women over 18, while still requiring a prescription for those under 18. The agency has yet to make a final decision (Pugh, 2006). During the hearing, several Senators, including Clinton, Murray, Reed (DRI), and Harkin (D-IA), pressed Dr. von Eschenbach on why the FDA has delayed a decision, whether there was any scientific basis for the age restrictions the FDA seeks to impose, and what kind of distribution and monitoring protocols the FDA will require of the manufacturer (Pugh, 2006). See also February 13, 2004; May 6, 2004; January 21, 2005; May 12, 2005; August 26, 2005; August 31, 2005; November 14, 2005; December 22, 2005; February 24, 2006, May 9, 2006, May 11, 2006. August 24, 2006 — FDA finally approves over-the-counter status for Plan B but only for women 18 and over After a three-year struggle, the FDA finally approved over-the-counter status for Plan B emergency contraception (EC), but to purchase Plan B, women must show proof of age, and those under 18 will need a prescription (Salon.com, 2006). Nine states already permit pharmacists to dispense EC to women and teens without a prescription, and this decision will not affect these policies (Los Angeles Times, 2006). “While we urge the FDA to revisit placing age restrictions on the sale of Plan B, it is real progress that millions of American women will now have
62
increased access to emergency contraception,” Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) said in a statement (Associated Press, 2006). The senators also said they would lift their hold on the nomination of Andrew von Eschenbach to be FDA commissioner (USA Today, 2006). Susan Wood, former FDA assistant commissioner for women’s health, resigned from the FDA in August 2005 in protest of the delay in approving EC over-the-counter. “While I am glad that the drumbeat for a return to a science-based FDA has had some positive impact, this decision still represents a compromise … that could have the unintended consequence of hurting young women’s health,” she said (Associated Press, 2006). Plan B will be kept behind the counter at pharmacies. Experts estimate that wide access to EC could prevent up to 1.7 million unintended pregnancies — and 800,000 abortions — a year. Research shows that over-the-counter access to emergency contraception does not increase or encourage sexual activity among teens (PPFA, 2006). See also February 13, 2004; May 6, 2004; January 21, 2005; May 12, 2005; August 26, 2005; August 31, 2005; November 14, 2005; December 22, 2005; February 24, 2006, May 9, 2006, May 11, 2006, August 1, 2006.
Cited References Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002, H.R. 4691, 107th Congress, 2nd Sess. (2002). Abrams, Jim. (2004, February 22). “Bill to expand rights of the unborn is latest battleground on abortion rights.” Associated Press. Abrams, Jim. (October 1, 2004). “House Defeats Gay Marriage Ban Amendment.” Associated Press. ACOG−American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2003, October 3, accessed October 30). “Statement on So-Called ‘Partial Birth Abortion’ Law.” [Online]. http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-0303.cfm Administration Budget Request (2001). Government-Wide General Provisions. Title VI — General Provisions, Sec. (630) (a), 11. Africa News. (2005, June 27). "Malawi: Planned Pregnancies Prevents Obstetric Fistula." The Chronicle Newspaper. Agence France Press -- English. (2005, April 5). "Senate Votes Out Bush Foreign Aid Cuts to Family Planning."
63
Alan Gutmacher Institute memo, February 4, 2003 Allen, Mike. (2005, April 29). "Bush Backs Abortion Measure: He Urges Senate to Enact House Bill on Parental Notification." Washington Post, A4. Alliance for Justice. (Accessed 2003, January 2). “Judge Carolyn Kuhl.” [Online]. http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?nomineeid=18. _____. (2005, July 20). Preliminary Report on the Nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge John G. Roberts to the United States Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Alliance for Justice. “The America We Seek: A Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern.” (1996, accessed 2002, December 4). [Online]. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9605/articles/documentation.html. American Health Line. (2004, August 3). “’Partial-Birth’ Abortion: DOJ Appeals Decision to Strike Down Ban.” _____. (2005, April 15). "Rx Drugs: Bill Introduced to Require Pharmacies to Fill All Prescriptions." _____. (2005, May 13). "Plan B: Sens. Clinton, Murray Ask Leavitt to Investigate Memo." AMWA−American Medical Women’s Association. (1999, November, accessed 2003, October 30) “Position Statement on Abortion and Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Services.”[Online]. http://www.amwadoc.org/publications/Position_Papers/abortion_and_access.htm. ANA−American Nurses Association. (1996, April 11, accessed 2003, October 30) “American Nurses Association Supports Veto of Late-term Abortion Bill.”[Online]. http://www.nursingworld.org/pressrel/1996/veto.htm. Andrusko, Dave. (2002, accessed November 20). “Huge Pro-Life Win at Children’s Summit,” National Right to Life News. [Online]. http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL06/un.html. Angle, Martha. (2005, May 25). "Owen Confirmed for 5th Circuit After Deal on Filibusters." Congressional Quarterly Today. Armey, Dick. (2002, September 25). “A Doctor's Choice; Government Shouldn't Force Abortion on Practitioners.” The Washington Times, A21.
64
AAPLOG—American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (Accessed 7 January 2003) . [Online]. http://www.aaplog.org/board.htm Ascribe News. (2004, February 20). “Civil Rights Coaltion Outraged by Bush’s Recess Appointment of William Pryor. Associated Press State & Local Wire. (2004, September 8). “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Reaction.” Associated Press State & Local Wire. (2006, August 24). “Quotes on over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill.” Associated Press Washington Dateline. (2004, 21 November). “Congress helps Providers Refuse Abortions.” Associated Press. (2005, September 16). "U.S., Citing Abortion in China, Withholds Funding from U.N. Group." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. (2005, November 21). "Our Opinions: Political Hurdle Stops Plan B." Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 126 S. Ct. 961 (2006) Babington, Charles. (2004, July 7). “Senate Confirms Controversial Nominee to Federal Court.” The Washington Post, A4. _____. (2005, June 9). "Brown Approved for D.C. Circuit: Senate Confirms California Justice, Sets Vote on Pryor." Washington Post, A01. Baer, Susan. (2005, January 28). “FDA’s Decision on Morning-After Pill is Delayed; Agency Misses Deadline for Ruling on OTC Sale of Emergency Contraceptive.” The Baltimore Sun, 9A. Bartholomew, Lynne L. & David A. Grimes. (1998). "The Alleged Association Between Induced Abortion and Risk of Breast Cancer: Biology or Bias?" Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 53(11), 708-714. Belanoff, JK; Rothschild, AJ; Cassidy, F; DeBattista, C; Baulieu, EE; Schold, C; Schatzberg, AF. (2002, September 1). “An open label trial of C-1073 (mifepristone) for psychotic major depression.” Biological Psychiatry, pp. 386392. BestWire. (2004, November 29). “Insurers Wouldn’t Have to Pay for Abortions Under U.S. Spending Bill.”
65
Blumenthal, Les. “Brame case makes it to U.S. Senate; Murray cites tragedy: Amendment sought help for domestic violence victims.” Tacoma News Tribune, A12. Bolton, Alexander. (2004, July 6). “Cliffhanger Vote Today on Holmes.” The Hill, 1. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–207, (August 5, 2002). Boucher, Richard. (2004, July 16). “FY 2004 Funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).” U.S. Department of State – Press Statement.
Braver, Cleo. (2001, January 29). “Women want the right to make a choice.” Baltimore Sun, A13. Brewer, Bonita. (2003, November 23). “’Holly’s Bill’ aims to suspend abortions pill’s FDA approval.” Contra Costa Times, p. 4 Brogan, Pamela. (2005, June 22). "Bill Would Require Parental Notification When Minors Seek Birth Control." Muskogee Daily Phoenix and Times-Democrat (OK). Broida, Bethany. (2005, May 24). "High Court Agrees to Hear Parental Notification Case." Legal Intelligencer, 232 (101), 4. Brown, William A., Bonnie L. Glick, & Theodore G. Tong. (2002, May 29). Letter to Colin Powell summarizing the findings and recommendations regarding the question “Does the UNFPA support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China?” U.S. Department of State. Bush, George W. (2001, August 9). “Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research“ [Online]. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/print/20010809-2.html. Bush, George W. (2003, accessed 2003, September 25). “Memorandum for the Secretary of State.” [Online]. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030829-3.html Bush, George W. (2003a, October 21, accessed October 30) “President Applauds Congress for Partial Birth Abortion Bill.” [Online]. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031021-16.html. Bush, George W. (2003b, November 5; accessed 2003, December 5). “President signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.” [Online]. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html.
66
Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F.Supp.2d 805 (D. Neb. 2004). Catholics for a Free Choice. (2002, accessed November 20). “Background – John M. Klink’’ [Online]. http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/new/KlinkFactSheet.htm. Catholic World News. (2001, January 23, accessed 2002, December 4). “Reaction to Bush’s Ban on Abortion Funding.” [Online]. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewrec.cfm?RefNum=14724. CDC — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002a, February 8, accessed November 26). “CDC HIV/STD/TB Prevention News Update.” [Online]. http://lists.cdcnpin.org/pipermail/prevention-news/2002-February/000083.html. _____. (2002b, September 6). “Press Release: HHS Announces Six New Appointments to CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention.” CDC: Office of Communication. Center for Reproductive Rights. (2005, January 21). "Center Sues FDA for Denying Women Over-the-Counter Access to Emergency Contraception; FDA Internal Memo Suggests Agency Did Not Follow Regulations." [Press Release] Chiang, Harriet. (2004, August 3). “U.S. Appeals Abortion Act Ruling; Justice Department Seeks to Restore Ban During Second Trimester.” San Francisco Chronicle, B2.
Chicago Tribune. (2004, January 24). “Know when to fold ’em.”, 24. Child Custody Protection Act, H.R. 476, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2002). Child Custody Protection Act, S. 403. (2006). CNN. (2002, accessed December 5). “The Stem Cell Debate: Scientists Clone Embryos.” [Online]. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/stemcell/ CNN.com. (2004, February 26, accessed February 26). “House passes bill to protect fetuses.” [Online].
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/26/unborn.victims.ap/index.html
Coburn, Tom & Dave Weldon. (2001, July 24, accessed 2002, December 5). “It is Time for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to Start Telling the Whole Truth about Condoms!” [Online]. http://www.thecbc.org/exp/Papers/stmnt_CDCNIAID_release.asp. Committee on Government Reform. (2006, accessed 2006, July 17). False and Misleading Health Information Provided By Federally Funded Pregnancy
67
Resource Centers. [Online]. http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060717101140-30092.pdf Conyers Jr., John; Sanchez, Linda; Nadler, Jerrold; Boucher, Rick; Baldwin, Tammy; Lofgren, Zoe. (2003, November 6). Correspondence from Committee on the Judiciary to Attorney General John Ashcroft. Crary, David. (2004, February 12). “Abortion-rights advocates alarmed by Justice Department demand for access to medical records.” Associated Press Newswires. Crary, David. (2005, January 6). “Justice Department Assailed for Omitting Mention of Emergency Contraceptives in Rape Treatment Guidelines.” Associated Press. Creinin, MD. (2003, December). “Current medical abortion care.” Current Women’s Health Report, pp. 461-469. CRR — Center for Reproductive Rights. (2004). Briefing Paper: Governments Worldwide Put Emergency Contraception Into Women's Hands: A Global View of Laws and Policies. Curphey, Shauna. (2002, May 7, accessed December 4). “U.N. to Focus on Teen Reproductive Health.” [Online]. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/901/context/archive. The Dallas Morning News. (1994, October 22). “Surprisingly, abortion hasn’t made election issue list.” Byline: Lori Stahl, 32A. De La Cruz, Donna. (2005, April 14). "Bill Would Require Pharmacists to Fill Oral Contraception Prescriptions." Associated Press. DeSarno, Judith. (2002, January 17). “Statement by National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association President and CEO on Roe v. Wade Anniversary.” U.S. Newswire. Detroit Free Press. (2005, April 11). "Global Gag Rule: For Sake of Women's Health, Follow Senate's Lead." DeYoung, Mark. (2001, January 24, accessed 2002, December 4). “U.S. Taxpayers Still Foot Bill for Abortions Abroad.” [Online]. http://www.all.org/world/wo010124.htm. Dao, James. (2002, December 15). “At U.N. Family-Planning Talks, U.S. Raises Abortion Issue.” The New York Times, [Online]. htttp://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/international/15ABOR.html.
68
Dewar, Helen. (2003, March 14). “Senate Moves to Restrict Abortions; Ban on LateTerm Procedure Passed.” The Washington Post. _____. (2003, September 5). “Estrada Abandons Court Bid.” [Online] The Washington Post, p. A01. Doyle, Michael. (2002, November 11). “GOP Judges Still Wild Card.” Sacramento Bee, A1. Drug Industry Daily. (2005, May 16). "Senators Ask HHS to Probe Plan B Memo: FDA Denies Requesting 'Minority Report.' Vol 4, No. 96. Eaton, Sabrina. (1989, January 23). State News Service. ECLAC — Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean. (2004 a, March 11). “United States Explanation of Position.” _____. (2004b, March 11). “Preliminary Comments of the United States Delegation on the Draft Declaration, Subject to Consultations with Capital.” [Online]. http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/4597_USPosition.pdf Editorial. (2003, September 19). “A Deceptive Abortion Ban.” The New York Times, p. A26. Edsall, Thomas B. (2006, January 5). "Bush Appointments Avert Senate Battles." Washington Post, A13. Egelko, Bob. (2003, November 14). “Dems protest abortion ban enforcement; Overseer of new law would be division that protects clinics.” San Francisco Chronicle, A10. Eisinger, SH; Meldrum, S; Fiscella, K; le Roux, HD; Guzick, DS. (2003, February). “Low-dose mifepristone for uterine leiomyomata.” Obstretics and Gynecology, pp. 243-250. El Etreby, MF; Liang, Y; Lewis, RW. (2000, April 1). “Induction of apoptosis by mifepristone and tamoxifen in human LNCaP prostate cancer cells in culture.” Prostate, pp. 31-42. Enda, Jodi. (2002, November 2). “Bush Administration Backs Away for Reproductive Health Pact.” Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. Epstein, Edward. (2004, February 27). “House OKs Making Killing Fetus a Felony; Foes Fear Measure Will Undermine Abortion Rights.” San Francisco Chronicle, A4.
69
FDA Week. (2005, May 13). "Clinton, Murray Ask Leavitt to Investigate Hager's Memo on Plan B." Vol. 11, No. 19. _____. "Wood: FDA Ignored Plan B Science, Discounted Staff Recommendations." (2005, September 2). Vol. 11, No. 35. Finer, Lawrence B., and Stanley K. Henshaw. (2003). “Abortion Incidence and Services In the United States in 2000.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35(1), 6–15. Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007, HR 261, 109th Cong., 2nd session, Congressional Record 151 (2005, July 19): H 6050. Freedom of Choice for Women in the Uniformed Services Act, H.R. 2062, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003). Fryer, Alex. (2004, March 26). “Murray Maneuver Makes Abortion an Election Issue.” Seattle Times, A1. Gellene, Denise and Neuman, Johanna. (2006, August 24). “Plan B Pill Cleared for Sale Over the Counter.” Los Angeles Times. Gerstenzang, James. (2004, February 3). “PRESIDENT BUSH’S BUDGET PLAN; More Money Urged to Foster Abstinence; Bush proposes a boost in education for teens and an initiative to promote marriage.” Los Angeles Times, A15. Glasier, Anna & David Baird. (1998). "The Effects of Self-Administering Emergency Contraception." New England Journal of Medicine, 339(1), 1-4. Goldman, T.R. (2005, June 13). "Brown Confirmed to D.C. Circuit Bench; Court Watch: California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown Likely to Tilt Influential Court Even More to the Right." Legal Times, p.10. Goldstein, Amy and Charles Babington. (2006, January 12). "Alito Leaves Door Open to Reversing 'Roe': Membership In Controversial Group Surfaces As an Issue." The Washington Post, A1. Goldstein, Amy & Jonathan Weisman. (2004, January 21). “At Home, New Programs Few, Relatively Modest.” The Washington Post, A21. Goldstein, Amy & Mike Allen. (2001, March 29). “Women’s Outreach Office Closed: Feminist Leaders Decry Bush’s Shuttering of Clinton Creation.” The Washington Post, A21. Goodin, Dan. (2006, February 1). "9th and 2nd Circuits strike down partial-birth abortion ban." Associated Press.
70
Goodman, Ellen. (2005, May 2). "Abortion Bill's Reality vs. Rhetoric." Baltimore Sun, 11A. Gorski, Anna Christine. (2004, February 20). “PROFS: BUSH MARRIAGE PLAN OK; BALDWIN, OTHERS SAY INTIATIVE WILL HARM EXISTING PROGRAMS.” The Capital Times, 2B. Greenberger, Scott S. (2005, September 16). "Lawmakers Override Governor's Contraception Veto: Move Will Ease Morning-After Pill's Availability." The Boston Globe. Greenhouse, Linda. (2005, May 24). "Court to Tackle Abortion Again After 5 Years." New York Times, A1. Greenhouse, Linda. (2006, June 20). ‘Justices to Expand Review of ‘Partial Birth’ Abortion Ban.” The New York Times, p. A14. Guggenheim, Ken. (2005, April 5). "Senate Votes to Lift Family Planning Restrictions, But Hurdles Remain." Associated Press -- Washington Dateline. Harman, Jane. (2002, May 9, accessed 2003, June 12). Statement by Congresswoman Harman regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. [Online]. http://www.house.gov/harman/issues/statements/107/050902ST_WomenMilitary. html Harman, Rep. Jane. (2005, May 25). "Harman Fights to Give Full Constitutional Rights to Women in the Military." Congressional Press Release. Harman, Rep. Jane. (2006, May 11). “Harman Decries House Failure to Lift Ban on Privately Funded Abortions at Military Overseas Health Facilities.” Congressional Press Release.
Harris, Gardiner. (2005, August 27). "U.S. Again Delays Decision on Sale of Next-Day Pill." New York Times, A1. Hatch, Orrin, Henry Hyde, & Charles Canady. Brief of Amici Curiae. Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997). (Nos. 95-1858 and 96-110). Health Law Week. (2005, May 27). "Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality of State Abortion Law." p. 5. Helm, Christian. (2005, June 22). "Coburn Bill Would Order Clinics to Inform Parents." The Daily Oklahoman, 5A.
71
HHS — Department of Health and Human Services. (2002a, January 31, accessed December 4). “President’s Budget Increases Abstinence Program Funding: Abstinence Request in Line With Teen Family Planning Money.” [Online]. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020131a.html. _____. (2002b, March 1, accessed December 4). “HHS Names New Members to Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.” [Online]. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020301a.html. _____. (2002c, July 25). “Office of Public Health and Science: Announcement of the Availability of Financial Assistance and Request for Applications to Support Development and Delivery of Public Awareness Campaigns on Embryo Adoption.” Federal Register, 67(143), 48654–48660. _____. (2002d, October 7, accessed December 4). “HHS Names New Deputy Assistant Secretary.” [Online]. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20021007a. Henderson, Diedtra. (2005, September 1). "Official Resigns Over FDA Refusal to Allow Some Sales of Contraceptives." Boston Globe. Holland, Judy. (2004, March 12). “Senate Rejects Birth Control Measure in Abortion Bill.” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Holland, Jesse J. (2005, June 9). "Senate Approves Pryor for Appeals Court, Completes Senate Centrist Deal." Associated Press Washington Dateline. _____. (2005, September 29). "Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice of the United States." Associated Press, Washington Dateline. Houston Chronicle. (2004, July 3). “Just Vote No: Senator’s Decision on Nominee Could Be Crucial.” A40. Hudson, Audrey. (2002, August 1). “Senate Confirms Nominee to Court; Bush gets Delay on Other Bench Pick.” The Washington Times, A3. Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, H.R. 2505, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001). Hulse, Carl. (2005, February 16). "Bush Defies Democrats by Renominating Court Picks." The International Herald Tribune, 4. Hunt, Terrence. (2004, February 24). “Bush urges gay marriage ban; Democrats accuse him of pandering to the right.” Associated Press Newswires.
72
Hutcheson, Ron. (2003, January 8). “Bush resubmits controversial judicial nominations.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A03. In re Jane Doe 10, 78 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. S.C. 2002). In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346, 365-66 (Tex. S.C. 2000). Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA). (2005, September 23). "Unfunding AIDS Plans." A10. Ireland, Doug. (2002, May 16). “US and Evil Axis: Allies for Abstinence.” The Nation. Johnson, Douglas. (2001, June 14, accessed 2002, December 4). “Letter to the members of the U.S. Senate on behalf of the National Right to Life Committee.” [Online]. http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/BAIPAsenate061401.html. Johnston, Eric. (2003, October 28, accessed October 30). “Probe alarms AIDS, sex researchers,” Gay.com./ PlanetOut.com Network [Online]. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/po/20031029/co_po/probealar msaidssexresearchers. Katz, Celeste. (2005, May 13). "Hil Urges Probe of FDA Pill Ruling." New York Daily News, 79. Kaufman, Marc. (2004, May 8). “FDA: Plan B Sales Rejected Against Advice; Official Denies That Politics Blocked Contraceptive’s Over-the-Counter Status.” Washington Post, A2. _____. (2005, May 12). "Memo May Have Swayed Plan B Ruling: FDA Received 'Minority Report' From Conservative Doctor on Panel." Washington Post, A02. _____. (2005, August 27). "FDA Delays Decision on Plan B Contraceptive." Washington Post, A01. _____. (2005, November 15). "Review of 'Plan B' Pill Is Faulted; Report Calls FDA Actions 'Unusual.'" Washington Post, A01. Kenen, Joanne. (2004, February 2). “Marriage programs, abstinence education in Bush budget.” Reuters News. Kerr, Kathleen. (2005, January 11). “U.S. Shift on Rape Victims; Local Health Workers Protest Federal Change in Treatment Guidelines That No Longer Mention Plan B Contraception.” New York Newsday, A24.
73
_____. (2005, December 23). "Contraceptive suit still alive; Brooklyn judge refuses to dismiss a lawsuit looking to force the government to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill." Newsday, A54.
Kessler, Glenn. (2005, October 26) "Democrats Zero In On Another." Washington Post, A7. Kian, Sina. (2004, April 2). “The Untold Victims of Politics.” UVA Cavalier Daily. _____. (2004, September 30). “Rights to Those Who Defend Ours.” University of Virginia Cavalier Daily. Kirkpatrick, David. (2005, May 26). "For New Judge, Self-Reliance in Life and Law." New York Times, A1. _____. (2005, December 1). "Alito File Shows Strategy to Curb Abortion Ruling." The New York Times, A1. _____. (2006, February 1). "Alito Sworn In as Justice After Senate Gives Approval." The New York Times, A21. Krisberg, Kim. (2004, February 1). “Panel favors providing emergency contraception without a prescription.” Nation’s Health, 34(1), 1. Kristof, Nicholas. (2005, February 16). "Bush's Sex Scandal." New York Times, A21. Kuhnhenn, James. (2004, November 21). “Abortion Foes Win Round in U.S. Spending Bill; State Laws Requiring Abortion Services Would Lose Out.” San Jose Mercury News, A8. Lab Business Week. (2005, January 30). “Study: Readily Available EC Doesn’t Increase Unprotected Intercourse, STI Risk.” Lane, Charles. (2005, May 24). "Justices to Hear N.H. Abortion Notification Challenge." Washington Post, A06. Lederer, Edith. (2005, June 22). "U.S. Urges U.N. to Stop Its Family Planning Program in China Until Beijing Ends Forced Abortions." Associated Press Worldstream. Lerner, Sharon. (2004, May 18). “Nyquil, Yes. Morning-After Pill, No.” Village Voice, 45. Lewis, Neil A. (2004, January 16). “Bush Seats Judge After Long Fight, Bypassing Senate.” The New York Times, A1.
74
_____. (2003a, January 31). “A Once-Doomed Nomination Wins Senate Panel Approval.” The New York Times, p. A26. _____. (2003b, September 5). “Stymied by Democrats in Senate, Bush Court Pick Finally Gives Up.” The New York Times, p. A1. _____. (2004, July 7). “After Fight, Senate Agrees to Bush’s Choice for Judge.” The New York Times, A5. Lichtblau, Eric and Robert Pear. (2004, March 6). “Administration Sets Forth a Limited View on Privacy.” The New York Times, 8. Lincoln (NE) Journal Star. (2005, September 26). "Bush Would do Good to Restore UNFPA Funds." B4. Linzer, Dafna. (2001, August 29). “Bush to Alter Child Summit Policy.” Associated Press. Liptak, Adam. (2004, June 2). “U.S. Judge in San Francisco Strikes Down Federal Law Banning Form of Abortion.” Lobe, Jim. (2005, September 16). "Development: Bush Trims Money OK'd for U.N. Population Fund." Inter-Press Service, Global Information Network. Lochhead, Carolyn. (2005, June 9). "Justice Brown Confirmed for Appeals Post: Senate Votes 56-43 After Partisan Fight Over California Jurist." San Francisco Chronicle, A4. Los Angeles Times. (2004, August 28). “Pentagon Abortion Politics.” B6. Mabin, Butch. (2004, September 9). “Judge Rules Against Abortion Ban.” Lincoln Journal Star, A1. Machacek, John. (2005, September 23). "Schumer, Clinton Reject Roberts." Gannet News Service, ARC. Maloney, Carolyn, et al. (2002, October 31). Letter to Secretary Colin Powell, U.S. Department of State. Congress of the United States. Marshall, Ellen. (2002, November 1). “Bush’s Other War: The Assault on Women’s Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights.” International Women’s Health Coalition. McCarthy, Sheryl. (2005, May 5). "Helping Pregnant Teens: Federal Crime?" Newsday (New York), A48.
75
McConnell, Michael. (1997). “The Right to Die and the Jurisprudence of Tradition.” Utah Law Review, 665. McIlhaney, Joe. (2002, April 23). “Welfare Reform: A Review of Abstinence Education and Transitional Medical Assistance.” Testimony before the Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives.
McCullough, Mary. “Sex-assault Treatment Guidelines Omit Pill: Victims’ Advocates Call Emergency Contraception Key, Seek Justice Changes.” Philadelphia Inquirer, A01. The Medical Institute. (2002a, accessed December 5). “Media Advisories.” [Online]. http://www.medinstitute.org/media/index.htm. _____. (2002b, accessed December 5). “About Us.” [Online].
http://www.medinstitute.org/about/index.htm
The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, (1999). “Induced Abortion.” pp2003-5. Rahway, NJ: Merck, Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories. Miller, Eric D. (2002, February 5). Amicus brief filed. Missouri House Bill 1596. (1986). Morrison, Patt. (2004, March 9). “Ashcroft Gunning for Peek at Private Medical Records.” The Los Angeles Times, 3. Mosher, Steven. (2000, January 2). Bush Could Use Executive Orders to Save Lives. [Online Serial]. Available E-mail: infonet@prolife.org. Mulkern, Anne C. (2004, October 1). “Gay-marriage amendment fails to win 2/3 House vote. Author Still Claims Victory, Opponents Cite Racist Parallel.” Denver Post, A-02. National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, 330 F.Supp.2d 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 278 (2nd Cir. 2006). NARAL—National Abortion Rights Action League. (2001, June). “Judge Carolyn Kuhl.” NASTAD—National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. (2002, accessed 2002, December 20). “Abstinence Funding Issue Brief.” [Online].
http://www.nastad.org/pdf/PublicPolicy/Abstinence.pdf.
76
National Public Radio. (2004, February 16). All Things Considered. “Food and Drug administration’s decision to put off its final ruling on the so-called ‘morning-after pill.’” National Women’s Law Center. (2002, May, accessed December 5). “The Nomination of D. Brooks Smith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.” [Online]. http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/DBrooksSmithReport.pdf. Neas, Ralph, interviewed by Terry Gross, Fresh Air with Terry Gross, National Public Radio, 15 February 2005.
Neergaard, Lauren. (2004, February 14). “FDA Postpones Morning-After Pill Decision.” Associated Press. _____. (2005, August 27). "FDA Delays Decision on Morning-After Pill." Associated Press Online. Neergaard, Lauran. (2005, November 15). "Audit Faults FDA Decision-Making on Emergency Contraception." Associated Press, Business News. Neergaard, Lauran. (2003, December 17). “Federal Panel Backs Over-The-Counter Emergency Contraception.” The Associated Press. Neergaard, Lauran. (2004, May 6). “FDA Rejects Nonprescription Morning-After Pill For Now.” Associated Press Worldstream. Neumeister, Larry. (2004, August 27). “Second Federal Judge Finds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Unconstitutional.” Associated Press.
The New York Times. (2004, February 21). “Judicial Activism.”, 14. _____. (1994, April 7). “The Supreme Court: Excerpts from Major Opinions.” 25A. _____. (2004, March 29). “A Misleading Fetal Violence Law,” A20. _____. (2004, 23 November). “Rolling Back Women’s Rights.” A3. _____. (2005, May 29.) "Disrespecting Women Soldiers." Section 4, p. 9. NIH−National Instiutes of Health. (2003, October 28, accessed October 30) “Hill Hearing Airs NIH Needs, Congress' Concerns.” [Online]. http://www.nih.gov/news/NIHRecord/10_28_2003/story03.htm.
77
O’Hanlon, Kevin. (2004, September 28). “Government to Appeal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Ruling.” Associated Press State & Local Wire. Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002, H.R. 4965,107th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2002). Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, H.R. 760, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003). Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, S.3, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003). Pear, Robert & David D. Kirkpatrick. (2004, January 14). “Bush plans marriage initiative.” The New York Times, 1A. Pear, Robert. (2005, February 17). "Governors in Capital to Talk About Medicaid." New York Times, A3. Perine, Keith. (2005, February 15). "Snowe Weakens Frist's Hand for Senate 'Nuclear Option.'" Congressional Quarterly. Perine, Keith and Seth Stern. (2005, September 2). "Roe v. Wade a Chief Concern in Roberts Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings." Congressional Quarterly Today. Perine, Keith. (2006, June 23). “Supreme Court Takes Second ‘Partial Birth’ Case.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly. Philadelphia Inquirer. (2005, 5 January). “An Unseemly Reticence.” _____. (2005, June 24). "Area Votes in Congress." B05. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 320 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Gonzales, 435 F. 3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2006) Planned Parenthood of Kansas City, Missouri v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983).
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). PPFA—Planned Parenthood Federation of America. (2000, accessed 2002, December 19). “The Truth About Condoms.” [Online].
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/condoms/truth.html.
PPFA—Planned Parenthood Federation of America. (2002, November 15). “Now What? #84.”
78
Planned Parenthood Federation of America. (2004, June 1). "Aschroft Justice Department Continues Zealous Effort to Enact Dangerous Abortion Ban, Files Appeal in Planned Parenthood Lawsuit." [Press Release]. _____. (2004, 22 November). “So-Called ‘Abortion Non-Discrimination Act’ Threatens Women’s Health; Sweeping Refusal Clause Strips State Autonomy and Jeopardizes Women’s Reproductive Health.” [Press Release] _____. (2005, February 17). "President Bush's Budget Fails to Protect Health of Women and Teens: FY 2006 Budget Devotes $206 Million to Misinforming Youth Instead of Improving Access to Family Planning Services." [Press Statement] _____. (2005, May 24). "'Compromise' Paves Way for Vote on Extremist Nominee Owen: Extremist Nominee Should Be Voted Down, Bush Administration Should Stop Playing Texas Hold 'Em With Women's Health, Safety and Rights." [Press Release] _____. (2005, June 8). "Planned Parenthood Urges Senate to Defeat Confirmation of Brown." [Press Statement] _____. (2005, June 16). "House Vote Shows Shameful Disregard for Poor Women Around the World: Defeats Maloney Amendment to Restore Essential International Family Planning Funds to UNFPA." [Press Release.] _____. (2005, September 15). "Press Release: Testimony of PPFA Interim President to Senate Judiciary Committee." New York, NY: Planned Parenthood Federation of America. _____. (2006, Jan. 18). "Supreme Court Ruling in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood Recognizes Protections for Women's Health and Safety." [Press Release] _____. (2006, June 19). “U.S. Supreme Court to Review Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood.” [Press Release]. _____. (2006, July 17). “Waxman Report Confirms ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centers’ Mislead Women; Planned Parenthood Urges Congress to Stop Wasting Taxpayer Dollars.” [Press Release]. _____. (2006, July 25). “Dangerous Family Restriction Act; Unconstitutional Law Is Federal Intrusion In Family Decision Making, Risks Teens' Health and Safety.” [Press Release]. _____. (2006, August 24). “Planned Parenthood Hails Expansion of Plan B Access, but Cites Concerns About Teen Pregnancy.” [Press Release].
79
Population Connection. (2004, February, accessed 2004, February 20). “2005 Budget Proposal Released: Population Programs Slighted Yet Again.” [Online].
https://www.populationconnection.org/Action_Alerts/alert400.html#2
Porio, Matt. “House Opposes All Cloning.” Newsday, 28 February 2003. Powell, Colin. (2001, January 17). Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the confirmation of Colin Powell as U.S. Secretary of State. Pugh, Tony. (2006, August 2). “Hearing Focuses on Plan B Rules.” Fort Worth StarTelegram, p. A4. Puzzanghera, Jim. (2004, October 1). “House Vote to Ban Gay Marriage Falls Short of Passage.” San Jose Mercury News, A6. PR Newswire. (2002, February 7). “Justice for All Project Opposes Nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.” _________. (2005, January 21). “FDA Decision on Plan B OTC Status Delayed.” Quenqua, Douglas. (2004, January 19). “Bush’s ‘Healthy Marriage’ Initiative could lead to RFP.” PR Week US, 1. Raine, Tina, M.D., et al. (2005, January 5). “Direct Access to Emergency Contracption Through Pharmacies and Effect on Unintended Pregnancies and STIs.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 293:54-62. Rankin, Bill. (2005, June 9). "Vote on Pryor Assured: Judge a Shoo-In for Appeals Court." Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1A. Rapaport, Lisa. (2004, May 7). “FDA: No ‘Morning-After’ Pill Without Prescription.” Sacramento Bee, A1. Reddy, Diane M., et al. (2002, August 14). "Effect of Mandatory Parental Notification on Adolescent Girls' Use of Sexual Health Care Services." Journal of the American Medical Association, 288 (6), 710. Reuters. (2002, May 10, accessed December 4). “UN Children’s Summit Hits Snag.” [Online]. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/world/main508694.shtml. Reynolds, Maura and Richard Simon. (2005, May 25) "Senate Stalemate Ends; Senate Votes to End Filibuster on Justice Owen: The Move Paves the Way for Confirmation of the Appellate Nominee and Two Other Candidates." Los Angeles Times, A18. Richman, Josh. (2004, June 2). “Judge Rejects Abortion Ban; Outlawing Partial-Birth Proceedings Unconstitutional, Jurist Rules in S.F.” San Mateo County Times. 80
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Royce, Lindy. (2005, April 14). "Congress to Consider Birth Control Bill." CNN.com. Rubin, Rita. (2005, September 1). "FDA's Chief of Health for Women Resigns." USA Today, 6D. Rubinkam, Michael. (2006, January 3). "Landmark Pennsylvania abortion case to be prime topic at Alito hearing." Associated Press. The Rutherford Institute, et al. Brief of Amici Curiae at 7, Webster v. Reproductive Health Service, 492 U.S. 490 (1989) (No. 88-605). The Rutherford Institute, et al. Brief of Amici Curiae. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (no. 91-744 and 91902). The Rutherford Institute, et al. Brief of Amici Curiae. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) (No. 99-830). RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2003, H.R. 3453, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003). RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2003, S. 1930, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003). Rubin, Rita. (2006, August 25). “FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Sales of Plan B.” USA Today. Sacramento Bee. (2005, 15 September). "Denial by Delay: Politics Trumps Science ... Again." B8. _____. (2005, September 30). "'Guilt' by Association: Bush Fund Ban Hurts Chinese Women." B6. Salon.com. (2006, accessed 2006, September 11.) Sarah Goldstein, “Plan B Approved for Over-the-Counter Sales,” 24 August 2006 [Online]. http://www.salon.com /mwt/broadsheet/2006/08/24/plan_b/index.html S. Amdt. 2321 to S. Amdt. 2320, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999). S. Amdt. 260 to S. 3., 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003). S. Amdt. 691 to S. 1050, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003). S. Amdt. 1141 to S. 925, 108th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2003).
81
Savage, David. "With GOP Running Senate, Bush Renames Rejected Judges." Los Angeles Times, 8 January 2003. Savage, David G. (2002, November 15). “Democrat-Led Senate Panel Meets Final Time, Oks 2 Judges; Judiciary Committee has now cleared 100 of 102 Bush nominees over 16 months. Of those, 80 have been approved by the full chamber.” Los Angeles Times, Main News, Part 1, p. 21. _____. (2005, May 24). "The Nation: Justices to Rule on Abortions for Minors." Los Angeles Times, A1. The Seattle Times. (2004, February 21). “President bypasses the Senate, seats judge; Disputed nominee is Bush’s second recess appointment,” A1. Shaw, Gwyneth. (2005, October 25) "Sauerbrey faces tough questions from senators; Despite doubts about her qualifications, Md. GOP figure likely to win State Dept. Job." The Baltimore Sun, 1A Shedd, Dennis. (2002, July 19). Letter to the Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate in response to questions posed by Senator Schumer. SIECUS — Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (2002, January 24) SEICUS Policy Update.SIECUS — Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (2006, March) SIECUS Policy Update. SIECUS — Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (2006, February 16) SIECUS Special Report.
Silberner, Joan. (2005, May 13). "Questions Raised About Role of Religion in FDA Actions After Evangelical Christian Advisor Takes Credit for Keeping Emergency Contraception Pill Off the Market." National Public Radio, All Things Considered. Silverstein, Ken. (2005, October 1) "Shades of FEMA's Brown in Bush Pick." Los Angeles Times. A1 Simon, Richard. (2004, March 26). “Senate Passes Bill on Unborn; The Measure Would Make It a Separate Offense to Harm a Fetus During A Violent Crime. Critics Say It’s a Move to Reverse Abortion Rights.” Los Angeles Times, A1. Simon, Richard. (2004, July 15). “Senate Says No To Marriage Amendment. The Measure, Drafted to Ban Same-Sex Unions, Fails in a Procedural Vote. The Rebuff to Bush Could Have a Bearing on the Fall Elections.” (Los Angeles Times, A1).
82
Smith, Chris (2001a, May 16). Testimony regarding the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, U.S. House of Representatives. _____. (2001b, January 22, accessed 2002, December 4) “Bush Picks Smith to Read President’s Pro-Life Statement Before Annual March.” [Online]. http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/press2001/pr012201life.html. _____. (2002, October 24). Letter to the Honorable Andrew Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development. Congress of the United States. Snyder, Cecilia. (2004, March 12). “U.S. Role at Chile Gathering Backfires and Puzzles Participants,” PlanetWire. [Online]. http://www.planetwire.org/details/4566?PHPSESSID=11b77500cfa 1d16027ed03ca834da92f Stanford, Joseph B. (1999, November) “Sex, Naturally.” First Things, The Journal of Religious and Public Life. [Online]. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9911/articles/stanford.html State Children’s Health Insurance Program; Eligibility for Prenatal Care and Other Health Services for Unborn Children, 42 C.F.R. Part 457 (2002). States News Service. (2005, April 5). "Senate Passes Boxer-Snowe Provision to Overturn Global Gag Rule." _____. (2005, June 8). "Senator Feinstein Urges Rejection of Brown Nomination." _____. (2005, June 9). "Closing Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy on Nomination of William Pryor to U.S. Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit." _____. (2005, June 16). "Bush Administration Denies Vital Health Care for Poor Women by Withholding Funding for United Nations Population Fund." _____. (2005, August 26). FDA Takes Action on Plan B: Statement by FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford. _____. (2005, September 16). "Crowley Outraged at Bush Decision to Withhold UNFPA Funding." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. (2003, September 18). “Senate Makes a Curb on Abortion Likely.” The New York Times, p. A26. _____. (2005, April 27). "House Tightens Parental Rule for Abortions." New York Times, A1.
83
Stuart, Catriona. (2005, January 26). “Women Sue FDA for Right to Buy Emergency Pill.” The New York Sun, 4. Susman, Tina. (2004, August 29). “Military’s Ban on Abortions Ignores Reality, Critics Argue; No-Sex Rules, Birth Control Fail to Stop Pregnancies.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, A6.
Swarns, Rachel L. (2003, August 27). “U.S. Cuts Off Financing for AIDS Program, Provoking Furor.” The New York Times, p. A8. Thomas, Helen. (2002, July 26). “President has Deserted Women’s Rights.” The Houston Chronicle, A42. Thrupkaew, Noy. (2002, September 23). “Money Where His Mouth Is.” The American Prospect, (13)17. Tummino v. von Eschenbach, No.05-366 (2006). Toner, Robin and Robert Pear. (2004, January 21). “Ban on Gay Marriages Leads List of Proposals.” The New York Times, 17. Traister, Rebecca. (2005, August 26). "The Comeback." Salon.com. Tribune news services. (2005, March 6) "Women's rights document OKd after U.S. drops abortion issue." The Chicago Tribune. 9 Tumulty, Karen. (2002, October 5). “Jesus and the FDA.” Time, 26. “UN Special Session on Children — Reproductive Health Debate.” (2002, May 1–May 16, accessed December 4). Media Analysis. [Online]. http://www.planetwire.org/details/2714. Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001). UNFPA. (2004, July 16). “UNFPA Regrets U.S. Administration’s Decision Not to Restory Funding.” [Press Release]. UNFPA Press Release. (2005, September 16). "UNFPA Saddened by U.S. Decision Not to Rejoin Nations' Support for Multilateral Work to Protect Women's Health." UNICEF. (2002, November 6, accessed December 4). “Afghanistan is Among Worst Places on Globe for Women’s Health, Say UNICEF and CDC.” [Online]. http://www.unicef.org/newsline/02pr59afghanmm.htm.
84
United Nations. (1994, accessed 2002, December 6). ICPD Programme of Action. [Online]. http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offeng/poa.html. ____. (1996, February). "Women and Violence." Department of Public Information. [Online] http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm USA Today. (2005, August 29). "FDA Abandons Its Standards." 12A. USCCB — U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. (2002). “The Need for Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Protection for Health Care Organizations That Choose Not to Provide Abortions.” [Online]. http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/facts2.htm. U.S. Department of Justice. (2001, July 20, accessed January 2, 2003). “Carolyn B. Kuhl, Biography.” [Online]. http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/kuhlbio.htm. Waxman, Henry, et al. (2002, October 21). Letter to the Honorable Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Congress of the United States. US Fed News. (2005, April 6). "Sen. Snowe Hails Women's Health Victory." ____________. (2005, April 14). "Lawmakers Introduce Legislation to Ensure Pharmacies Fill All Dr. Prescriptions." _____. (2005, June 16). "Effort to Re-Open Flow of U.S. Aid for World's Most Impoverished Women is Blocked on House Floor." United States Government Accountability Office. (2005, November). "Food and Drug Administration: Decision Process to Deny Initial Application for Over-the-Counter Marketing of the Emergency Contraceptive Drug Plan B Was Unusual." U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Government Reform — Minority Staff. Special Investigations Division. The Content of Federally Funded AbstinenceOnly Education Programs. (2004, December).
U.S. Newswire. (2002, December 24) “PPFA: Ideology Trumps Science at FDA; FDA Appointments are President’s Gift to Religious Extremists” [Online].
http://www.usnewswire.com
_____. (2004, February 20). “Reaction of Sen. Leahy to President’s Recess Appointment of William Pryor to 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals.” _____. (2004, October 8). “Congressional Leadership Puts Far Right Ideology Ahead of Military Women’s Health, Says NARAL Pro-Choice America.” _____. (2005, January 7). “Religious Groups Request U.S. Department Of Justice to Include Pregnancy Prevention in Rape Treatment Protocol.” 85
_____. (2005, February 8). "Bush Administration Budget Shows Misplaces Priorities on Sexuality Education: Statement from Brian Dixon, Population Connection." _____. (2005, May 11). "Women Leaders Speak Out All Week Against Bush's Judicial Nominees: Groups Highlights Concerns for Women's Rights." _____. (2005, October 6). “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Ask Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Federal Abortion Ban.” _____. (2006, July 25). “FRC: U.S. Senate Acts to Protect Parents’ Knowledge of Children’s Abortions.” U.S. State Department, Cable R 301702Z, December 2002. Van Look, Paul F.A. & Felicia Stewart. (1998). "Emergency Contraception." Pp. 277-295 in Robert A. Hatcher et al., eds., Contraceptive Technology, 17th edition. New York: Ardent Media. Vitucci, Claire. (2004, 24 November). “Senator Promises to Fight Provision; Law Changes Abortion Rules.” The Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA), B1. Wagle, Mary Jane. (2004, December 7). “Abstinence-Only: Breeding Ignorance — The Bush-Backed Sex Education Programs Are Filled with Errors.” Los Angeles Times, B13. Waxman, Henry. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform. (2006, March 9, accessed May 18, 2006). [online] http://www.henrywaxman.house.gov/news_letters.htm. Letter to the Honorable Andrews C. von Eschenbach, M.D., Acting Commissioner, FDA.
Weinstein, Henry. (2005, February 15). "Bush Revives Candidacies for 20 Federal Judgeships; Democrats, Advocacy Groups Say Some of the Judges are Extremists. But Plans to Block Their Approval Will Meet A Stronger Senate GOP." Los Angeles Times, A26. Weiss, Rick. (2002, October 30). “New Status for Embryos in Research.” The Washington Post, A01. _____. (2003, October 30, accessed October 30) “NIH Faces Criticism On Grants.” The Washington Post, A21. [Online]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wpdyn/A37896-2003Oct29?language=printer. Werner, Erica. (2005, May 25). "California Democrats Try to Allow Abortions for Troops Overseas." Associated Press State & Local Wire.
86
Wetzstein, Cheryl. (2001, December 10). “Ware Named to Lead U.S. AIDS Panel.” The Washington Times, A9. Wingfield, Brian. (2004, December 3). “Study Faults Abstinence Courses.” New York Times, A22. WomenseNews. (2002, February 9). “Bush Judicial Nominee Opposed Family Planning, ERA.” Women’s Sports Foundation. (2002, December 19, accessed January 2, 2003). “Commission to Recommend a Weakened Title IX.” [Online]. http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgicin/iowa/issues/rights/article.html?record=938. Zitner, Aaron. (2003, October 28, accessed October 30) “Intimidation Against AIDS Studies Claimed.” Los Angeles Times, A8 [Online]. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/national/20031028/20031028A08.pdf.
Contact: Media Relations Colleen McCabe (212) 261-4729 Public Policy Chris Korsmo (202) 973-4870
87