Alaska Supreme Court: Abortion Initiative Can Appear on August Ballot Saturday, Jun 5 2010

From the Courthouse News Service:

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that an initiative that would require parental notification for minors seeking abortions can appear on the August primary ballot, even though the petition summary left out key information.

In 2007 the state high court struck down the Parent Consent Act (PCA), which would have required girls under the age of 18 to get parental consent to have an abortion. The justices said the bill violated the girls’ privacy rights.

The current petition would require girls to notify their parents or guardians – if not gain their consent — before having an abortion. It was
Planned Parenthood of Alaska objected to the petition’s language in a lawsuit against Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell, and the lower court agreed that the petition summary omitted crucial information.

The state Supreme Court upheld this part of the ruling, saying the summary should have included the following information: the petition was a modification of the PCA; parental notification is currently not required; and doctors who perform abortions without parental consent could be jailed for up to five years.

“The type and severity of legal consequences a doctor might face could reasonably give a voter serious grounds for reflection,” the justices wrote.
But the court said the changes were not significant enough to warrant a recirculation of the petitions.

Here is a copy of the full court opinion/opinion order.

It is interesting that Associate Justice Dana Fabe joined in the majority in upholding the anti-abortion initiative here.  As noted in the article above, in 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court struck down the a law that would have required minors to get parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion. See full opinion here.  And, in fact, it was Justice Fabe who wrote the opinion for the court in that 3-2 decision.

Other than that, it’s a mess trying to compare heads between the two rulings.  Since the 2007 ruling, there have been three replacements on the five-justice bench: Winfree, Christen, and Stowers.  Moreover, Chief Justice Carpeneti, who wrote the dissent in the 2007 decision, did not participate in this decision (nor did Christen).  I guess that means that the decision probably would have been the same had the full bench participated (Carpeneti to uphold, Christen unknown), but your guess is as good as mine.

Leave a Response »

 

Women in North Italy to Be Paid Not to Have Abortions Friday, Jun 4 2010

From the BBC:

Pregnant women in northern Italy are to be offered 4,500 euros (£3,700; $5,500) not to have abortions.

The idea comes from the governor of the Lombardy region, Roberto Formigoni, who says no woman should end a pregnancy because of economic difficulty.

The women would have to prove they are in financial hardship in order to qualify for the 18 monthly payments.

The policy has been welcomed by anti-abortion campaigners, but critics have condemned the move as propaganda.

Mr Formigoni, a political ally of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, said he wanted to support “the family, motherhood and births”.

The article does not get into much detail about whether Mr. Formigoni is really campaigning for “family, motherhood and births” in any tangible way or whether he is only stating his purpose behind the subsidy.  So it’s hard to evaluate the legitimacy of the critics’ charge of propaganda.  However, if there really is nothing more than a subsidy involved here, I wonder if these critics would level the same charge of propaganda against a subsidy for abortion.

I also wonder how much this measure has to do with population decline in Italy.

Leave a Response »

 

Late Abortion Ups Later Pregnancy Termination Risk Thursday, Jun 3 2010

According to a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as summarized by Reuters:

Women who have an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy are more likely than women who terminate their pregnancies earlier to have repeat abortions, new research shows.

And women who initially have a late abortion are also substantially more likely to have a second late abortion, Dr. Oskari Heikinheimo of Helsinki University Hospital in Finland and colleagues found. They also found that being younger than 20 sharply increased a woman’s risk of having repeat abortions, and of having repeat late abortions.

…

Late termination of pregnancy — meaning abortion at 13 weeks gestation or later — represents 5 to 10 percent of all abortions, the researchers note, while from 30 to 47 percent of women who have an abortion will have another later on.

…

Heikinheimo and colleagues looked at 41,750 Finnish women who had an abortion between 2000 and 2005 — 1,900 of whom terminated their pregnancies in the second trimester.

Compared with women who had first trimester abortions, those who had second-trimester abortions were 40 percent more likely to have had a second abortion by the end of 2006, the researchers found, while they were nearly four times as likely to have a second late abortion, and five times as likely to have an abortion after 16 weeks’ gestation.

And women younger than 20 years old were seven times as likely as older women to have repeat abortions, and more than 12 times as likely to have a second abortion during their second trimester of pregnancy.

I would be most appreciative to anyone who could provide me a PDF of the AJOG article, which requires a subscription.

Leave a Response »

 

New Oklahoma Anti-Abortion Law Temporarily Blocked Wednesday, Jun 2 2010

From the AP/Yahoo:

Oklahoma’s attorney general agreed Monday to temporarily block enforcement of a controversial new state law that requires pregnant women to get an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus before they get an abortion.

…

Attorney General Drew Edmondson agreed to the order to give his office more time to retain Teresa Collett, a University of St. Thomas Law School professor who represented the state when a similar law passed in 2008 was challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights. …

Leave a Response »

 

Planned Parenthood Pushing to Classify the Pill as “Preventive Care” under the New Health Care Law Tuesday, Jun 1 2010

From Politico:

As health reform regulations begin to take shape, Planned Parenthood has begun a quiet campaign to ensure that birth control is counted among the free preventive services that health insurers must cover under the Affordable Care Act.

Beginning Sept. 23, six months after the reform law passed, many health insurance plans will be required to provide free preventive services coverage, with no co-pays or out-of-pocket costs. During the reform debate, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) added an amendment that specified guaranteed “additional preventive care and screenings” specific to women’s health would also receive coverage.

What remains to be determined is what will make the “preventive services” list. …

…

Other reproductive health groups are also at work on the issue, looking at whether emergency contraception could find a place under the new regulations. “We’re in a collation, operating on the same tasks within our community,” said Laura MacCleery, director of government relations for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We’re actively pursuing what we think falls within the appropriate boundaries of the coverage of this amendment.”

…

“Congressional debate on the need to cover ‘preventive services’ in health care reform centered on services needed to prevent life-threatening diseases like breast cancer, not on a need to prevent the birth of new recipients of health care,” Richard Doerflinger of the[U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops'] Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities e-mailed POLITICO.

Ed Morrissey chimes in on whether PP is on solid ground in its push:

Is the Pill preventive, in the sense meant when preventive medicine got debated during ObamaCare?  Not at all.  Democrats specifically called out early diagnosis of diseases such as diabetes to argue that ObamaCare would be an overall cost saver.  A subsequent CBO analysis showed that argument to be a fallacy, but that didn’t stop them from making it repeatedly and consistently during the debate.  That never included an explicit argument that lowering the birth rate would be an overall cost-saver, or that it was a legitimate government interest to suppress the birth rate.

Well, legitimate or not, I wouldn’t bank on the HRSA adhering to strict definitions of “preventive.”

Leave a Response »

 

Petition Challenging Oklahoma Abortion Law Tuesday, Jun 1 2010

And here is the Petition challenging the Oklahoma abortion law.

The plaintiffs are Nova Health Systems, a non-profit corporation that has operated an abortion clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma since 1974 (Roe was decided in 1973); Larry A. Burns, D.O., an abortionist; and Dr. Burns’ patients, on whose behalf Dr. Burns purports to bring suit.

Here are some of the allegations:

38.  Dr. Burns typically performs a pre-abortion examination of a patient immediately before commencing an abortion procedure.  Requiring that an ultrasound be performed at least an hour prior to commencing an abortion procedure would limit Dr. Burns’ flexibility in scheduling patients and reduce the number of abortions that he could perform.

…

42.  By compelling physicians and certified technicians to disregard a patient’s wishes about whether to hear a description of the patient’s ultrasound image or to have the image thrust into her line of sight, the Ac requires physicians and certified technicians to violate principles of medical ethics.

…

44.  The Act singles out abortion providers for different and more burdensome treatment than all other health care providers regulated by the State.  Such differential treatment is not rationally related to the promotion of women’s health or any other important governmental interest.

…

46.  The Act embodies sex-based stereotypes and treats women differently than men.  Such differential treatment is not rationally related to the promotion of women’s health or any other important governmental interest.

…

57.  The Act violates Okla. Const. art. II, § 22 because it requires Plaintiffs to engage in unwanted, government-mandated speech.

..

61.  The Action violates the right of Plaintiff’s patients to terminate a pregnancy, which is protected as an inherent right by Okla. Const. art. II, § 2 and as a fundamental right by Okla. Const. art. II, § 7.

In the Prayer for Relief, the Plaintiffs request that the Court:

62.  Issue a declaratory judgment that H.B. 2780 violates the Oklahoma Constitution and is void and of no effect; and

63.  Issue permanent injunctive relief, without bond [i.e., without the right to stay the injunction pending appeal], restraining Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office from enforcing H.B. 2780; …

Once again, here is the full Petition.

Leave a Response »

 

Following the Oklahoma Abortion Law Challenge Monday, May 31 2010

I’m going to try to track the current challenge to the 2010 Oklahoma abortion law as best as I can.  To that end, let’s start with the bill that was actually passed.

Skipping the definitions and other more procedural aspects of the bill, the substantive section reads as follows:

Section 2.

A. Any abortion provider who knowingly performs any abortion shall comply with the requirements of this section.

B. In order for the woman to make an informed decision, at least one (1) hour prior to a woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced, and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion on the woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or the certified technician working in conjunction with the physician, shall:

1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;

2. Provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting;

3. Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them;

4. Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the viewable; and

5. Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with; and

6. Retain a copy of the written certification prescribed by paragraph 5 of this subsection. The certification shall be placed in the medical file of the woman and shall be kept by the abortion provider for a period of not less than seven (7) years. If the woman is a minor, then the certification shall be placed in the medical file of the minor and kept for at least seven (7) years or for five (5) years after the minor reaches the age of majority, whichever is greater.

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.

D. Upon a determination by an abortion provider that a medical emergency, as defined in Section 1 of this act, exists with respect to a pregnant woman, subsection B of this section shall not apply and the provider shall certify in writing the specific medical conditions that constitute the emergency. The certification shall be placed in the medical file of the woman and shall be kept by the abortion provider for a period of not less than seven (7) years. If the woman is a minor, then the certification shall be placed in the medical file of the minor and kept for at least seven (7) years or for five (5) years after the minor reaches the age of majority, whichever is greater.

E. An abortion provider who willfully falsifies a certification under subsection D of this section shall be subject to all penalties provided for under Section 3 of this act.

Quick summary: Before performing an abortion, the abortionist must perform an ultrasound on the woman, explaining what is being shown on the ultrasound (including, e.g., the heartbeat of the fetus), provide the woman an opportunity to view the ultrasound, and obtain a written certification from the woman that he/she has done so.  While the abortionist must display the ultrasound so that the woman can view it, the woman is not required to view it.  This procedure is not required in the event of a “medical emergency,” which, interestingly, does “not includ[e] any emotional, psychological, or mental condition.”  (See Definitions section in PDF).

Here is a PDF that contains the full text of the bill.

A. Any abortion provider who knowingly performs any abortion shall comply with the requirements of this section.

B. In order for the woman to make an informed decision, at least one (1) hour prior to a woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced, and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion on the woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or the certified technician working in conjunction with the physician, shall:

1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;

2. Provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting;

3. Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them;

4. Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the viewable; and

5. Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with; and

6. Retain a copy of the written certification prescribed by paragraph 5 of this subsection. The certification shall be placed in the medical file of the woman and shall be kept by the abortion provider for a period of not less than seven (7) years. If the woman is a minor, then the certification shall be placed in the medical file of the minor and kept for at least seven (7) years or for five (5) years after the minor reaches the age of majority, whichever is greater.

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.

D. Upon a determination by an abortion provider that a medical emergency, as defined in Section 1 of this act, exists with respect to a pregnant woman, subsection B of this section shall not apply and the provider shall certify in writing the specific medical conditions that constitute the emergency. The certification shall be placed in the medical file of the woman and shall be kept by the abortion provider for a period of not less than seven (7) years. If the woman is a minor, then the certification shall be placed in the medical file of the minor and kept for at least seven (7) years or for five (5) years after the minor reaches the age of majority, whichever is greater.

E. An abortion provider who willfully falsifies a certification under subsection D of this section shall be subject to all penalties provided for under Section 3 of this act.

Leave a Response »

 

Frozen human embryos ‘not life forms’: S.Korean court Saturday, May 29 2010

From Breitbart:

South Korea’s Constitutional Court has ruled that human embryos left over from fertility treatment are not life forms and can be used for research or destroyed, a court spokesman said Friday.

…

“The ruling means that human embryos that are in their early stage and are not implanted into a mother’s womb cannot be seen as human life forms,” the spokesman, Noh Hui-Beom, told AFP.

…

Following the ruling, shares related to stem-cell research surged on the local market.

Leave a Response »

 

Red Envelope Project Monday, Mar 30 2009

Have you heard about this? Tomorrow, on March 31st, thousands of pro-lifers plan to send red envelopes to the White House.  The envelopes will be empty, but will read on the back:

This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.

This seems like a very simple and effective message.  Will it make any difference?  Probably not.  White House staff  likely will be instructed to collect and dispose of all such letters, and no major media outlet will devote a drop of ink (or a pixel) to covering it.  Outside of the pro-life community, it may have no effect other than a gift subsidy to the ailing Postal Service.

Nonetheless, it’s the right thing to do.  Sometimes we should take actions that we know will be futile (though not counterproductive) if for no other reason than to do something rather than nothing.  And even if affects no one outside of the pro-life community, it may serve to strengthen commitment and solidarity within the community.

So, let’s all do this.  Send your red envelope to

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington , D.C. 20500

And please remember to include your return address, as the letter will not be delivered without it.

Leave a Response »

 

Tiller Acquitted Saturday, Mar 28 2009

Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller has been acquitted of all charges.  According to the AP,

Prosecutors had alleged that Dr. George Tiller had in 2003 gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury took only about an hour to find him not guilty of all 19 counts.

I’m not as familiar with the case as others, and thus I can’t comment on the merit of the decision (i.e., whether the evidence should have been sufficient to convict, not whether Tiller morally deserves punishment).

There is, however, at least this silver lining:

Soon after the verdict was announced, the state’s Board of Healing Arts made public a complaint against Tiller on allegations similar to those at issue in the criminal case. The complaint was filed in December but not released until Friday.

The board, which regulates doctors, could revoke, suspend or limit Tiller’s medical license, or fine him.

Related Posts:

• The Criminal Trial of Abortionist George Tiller Begins Tomorrow

Leave a Response »