January 13, 2012
March 23, 2017
Texas senators voted 19-10 on Wednesday afternoon to require women to pay a separate premium if they want their health plan to cover an elective abortion.
The Texas Senate on Wednesday gave initial approval to a measure that would require women to pay a separate premium if they want their health plan to cover an elective abortion.
Under Senate Bill 20, health plans would still be allowed to cover abortions that are deemed medically necessary. The measure does not make exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
The vote was 19-10. The measure will get a final vote before heading to the House.
“If you go back to the basics of insurance, it’s to cover large, unexpected expenses,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Larry Taylor, R-Friendswood. “In the case of abortion, you’re electing to have that procedure done.”
The bill is one of a number of abortion restrictions the Senate has approved recently. Earlier this week, the chamber passed Senate Bill 25, which would preventing parents from suing doctors if their baby is born with a birth defect and Senate Bill 415 which would require doctors to make sure a fetus is deceased before performing a certain type of abortion. Last week, Texas senators passed Senate Bill 8, which would ban what opponents call “partial-birth” abortions and put restrictions on donating fetal tissue.
Critics of SB 20 say Texans should not have to pay for supplemental coverage for abortions. Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said in a news release that the measure jeopardizes Texans’ health care options and would have a heavy impact on low-income Texans, people of color and young people.
“Having insurance coverage for abortion is important to ensure that every Texan can access the care they need in a timely manner,” Busby said. “It is wrong for the government to place restrictions on private health insurance companies looking to offer a full range of reproductive health services, including abortion.”
But Taylor told senators that his legislation would allow women to have their abortion covered while not forcing other policyholders to pay for it. He argued that people who are anti-abortion should not have to pay for abortions if they don’t believe in them.
“This is giving the people who support pro-choice the choice to buy that coverage separately and leave everyone else out of it,” Taylor said.
Taylor said he was inspired to push the measure because of his daughter’s recent pregnancy. He recently welcomed a new grandson born with Down syndrome and heart problems. When his daughter found out what her baby’s condition would be, he said, she knew she would not have an abortion. Taylor says his daughter’s situation is why he believes women know deep down if they would want to keep or terminate a pregnancy.
But reproductive rights advocates say no one can anticipate needing an abortion and forcing people to pay for it as supplemental coverage is wrong.
And Sen. Sylvia R. Garcia, D-Houston, told Taylor that the bill “is just trying to tell business what to do with insurance coverage they want to provide.”
Taylor pointed to the 2010 federal health law as part of his reasoning behind the bill. The Affordable Care Act allows states to choose how to regulate abortion coverage. Twenty-five states have opted to ban abortion coverage through health insurance plans, according to a 2016 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Melissa Conway, director of external relations for Texas Right to Life, said in a news release Taylor’s bill “would protect the freedom of all Texans to abide by their consciences.”
“Texans deserve the right to decide where their insurance and tax dollars go, and they should not be forced to fund the elective abortions of others,” Conway said. “The majority of Texans are pro-life and neither want nor need insurance coverage for elective abortion.”
Source: The Texas Tribune
March 22, 2017
Senate Bill 25, which will now be sent to the Texas House, prevents parents from suing their medical provider if their baby is born with disabilities, even if that doctor discovered the condition during routine prenatal testing and failed to inform the parents.
The architects of the so-called “wrongful-birth” bill have argued it would protect children with disabilities and prevent doctors from facing unnecessary lawsuits. “It is unacceptable that doctors can be penalized for embracing the sanctity of life,” Senator Brandon Creighton (R-TX) said in a press release when he introduced the legislation last fall.
But reproductive rights advocates have been relentless in their criticism of the measure, arguing that it would effectively make it lawful for a care provider who is opposed to abortion to avoid prenatal testing, downplay test results or even lie to patients about results if they believe those patients might consider terminating a pregnancy.
“SB 25 would allow doctors to lie to their patients,” Heather Busby, executive director at NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, the reproductive healthcare advocacy group, told The Huffington Post earlier this month.
“[It] is another thinly veiled attempt to prevent Texans from accessing their constitutional right to abortion,” Busby reiterated Tuesday.
Sen. Creighton has argued that the bill does not let doctors off the hook for negligent behavior, and emphasized that patients can still bring malpractice suits against care providers. He has said reporters and reproductive rights advocates have mischaracterized the nature of the bill, and derided an earlier HuffPost article on the measure as “fake news.”
The final Senate vote on Tuesday split 21-9, largely along party lines. During an earlier period of debate on the Senate floor, Senator Jose Rodriguez (D-TX) expressed concern that the bill was simply a means of chipping away at women’s rights, The Houston Chronicle reports.
“It seems to be all about restricting and further limiting a woman’s right to exercise her choice as to what she’s going to do in the case of serious defects in the fetus, congenital defects in the fetus,” said Sen. Rodriguez.
SB 25 was not the only abortion bill to move quickly through the Texas Senate this week.
On Monday, in front of a gallery that included a handful of activists dressed in costumes from “The Handmaid’s Tale, legislators passed Senate Bill 415, effectively banning dilation and evacuation, a safe and common procedure used in many second trimester abortions except when a woman faces a health emergency.
Source: Huffington Post
March 21, 2017
We congratulate Diana Johnston for introducing her bill (New bill to challenge UK’s Victorian-era abortion law, 14 March) and are delighted it was passed by 172 to 142 votes. As a 10-minute rule bill, it has no chance of becoming law, but it is important in starting the debate about whether, after 50 years, it is time to revisit the 1967 Abortion Act. It is time to treat abortion like any other medical procedure, and control it with regulation and the GMC. It is wrong that three women have been jailed or had a suspended sentence, and that doctors responding to women’s requests may face criminal prosecution. Many people (and even some gynaecologists) do not realise abortion is a criminal offence unless it conforms with the conditions set out in the Act. Up to 80% of people polled believe the woman should make the decision in consultation with her doctor and 90% of a random sample of gynaecologists surveyed in 2015 said that the woman should make the decision to end her pregnancy. It is time for women to be treated as autonomous adults capable of making their own decisions about continuing a pregnancy, a view that the some tabloid newspapers seem incapable of understanding.
Source: The Guardian
March 20, 2017
These numbers reveal the existing law is archaic and farcical, and that most agree that abortion should be considered a health issue not a criminal one. Abortion is covered by laws that have not been updated for 40 years. They say that two consultants need to agree that the woman’s mental or physical health is at risk or the baby would be seriously disabled before an abortion can be approved.
In most cases, it is merely a rubber-stamping exercise. Of the 13,000 abortions that were performed in New Zealand in 2015, nearly all were approved on mental health grounds (in 2014, that covered 97 per cent of abortions). Does anyone believe that more than 12,000 New Zealand women risked severe mental health outcomes if their pregnancies went full-term?
The fact that one in four New Zealand women have had an abortion suggests it has become mainstream, though it is a difficult personal decision that is rarely taken lightly and often at times of considerable distress. Some noted that even the language of the law reflects earlier, less enlightened times. Doctors are routinely referred to as “he” and the abhorrent term “subnormal” is used in a mental health context. This is what Abortions Supervisory Committee chair Dame Linda Holloway meant when she told Parliament last week that parts of the law seem “offensive” to us now. It also uses outdated medical terminology.
The committee’s appearance before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee put the otherwise dormant issue of abortion law under the spotlight. It made it political. For Opposition, there is the happy coincidence of having a conservative Catholic Prime Minister, Bill English, who refuses to back liberalisation and a Deputy Prime Minister and Women’s Affairs Minister, Paula Bennett, who has said she is “pro-choice” but is toeing the party line this time.
Act leader David Seymour identified that the current law is a “charade” from his party’s liberal perspective. But it is a charade we will keep playing for the time being. Despite such pressure, there is little political will for change and it is unlikely English and Bennett will be embarrassed into reversing their public positions on what remains a private and morally subjective area.
March 19, 2017
The abortion pill would be on hand at virtually every public college in California under legislation introduced Friday in the state Senate.
The bill’s inception comes amid renewed attempts to slash funding for Planned Parenthood, which would no longer receive Medicaid reimbursements under the Republican-backed American Health Care Act.
If the health care plan were passed in its current form, $174 million would be slashed from the budget of California’s Planned Parenthood clinics. Although Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of abortions in the country, it does not use federal money to provide the procedure.
“If those cuts are made, then I do believe this bill takes on a heightened sense of urgency,” state Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino (San Bernardino County), who put forth the bill, told The Chronicle. “Women in 2017 shouldn’t be fighting for access to their bodies.”
Leyva’s legislation — which doesn’t cover surgical abortions — would make the pregnancy-terminating pills available at all University of California, California State University and California Community College campuses that have a student health center that gets funding from the state.
The medication, two pills ingested orally, can be taken only within 10 weeks of a woman’s last period.
Kathy Kneer, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said the medication is safe and effective. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the pill 16 years ago, 3 million women have taken the abortion pill, she said. Of those, 19 died from complications related to the medication — a mortality rate lower than that of giving birth.
“There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be readily available in student health centers,” Kneer said. “There’s no medical justification.”
The availability of the abortion service on campuses would be the first in the nation. Last year, the elected student leaders of UC Berkeley lobbied the administration to provide the abortion pill at the campus health center, but their demands never came to fruition. UC Berkeley spokespeople said they weren’t available to discuss the matter.
“Because our health center includes a pretty comprehensive amount of sexual and reproductive services, not providing abortions reinforces the idea that abortion is not a part of women’s health, when it absolutely is,” said Adiba Khan, 20, a student who pushed for the service to be offered on campus. “For undergrads and graduate students, abortion is part of their life. It’s normal and should be available as easily and cheaply as possible.”
Khan said friends of hers who took the abortion pills were initially met with financial and academic roadblocks. Those who got their health insurance through the campus first had to meet with a counselor before they could be referred to an outside provider — a potential obstacle for the time-sensitive medication — and often missed class or work to travel to an abortion provider off campus, she said.
Marandah Field-Elliot, a student senator who helped organize the campaign to get the abortion service on campus, said an added bonus if the bill passes the state Legislature would be that UC Berkeley wouldn’t be the sole object of antiabortion activists. Already this year, UC Berkeley’s progressivism put the campus in the crosshairs of President Trump’s tweets when violent protests forced an event featuring controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos to be canceled.
“This bill would be so amazing, because it would spread the impacts rather than putting a target right on Berkeley,” Field-Elliot said.
March 18, 2017
Google has blocked an anti-abortion group from using advertisements on its search engine that encourage women to visit their rogue crisis pregnancy agency.
Last year The Times exposed how The Women’s Centre on Berkeley Street in Dublin was advising women that abortion caused breast cancer and could turn them into child abusers.
Despite claiming to be an objective source of information, The Women’s Centre is linked to The Good Counsel Network, an extreme Catholic group that has compared abortion to terrorism. The group paid Google so that its website, abortionadvice.ie, was the first or second result when a woman searched for information on how to access a legal abortion abroad. Women who call its “national helpline” are offered appointments at The Women’s Centre or one of the other clinics it claims to run across the country.
Google offers paid advertisements which can present a website as the first result under certain search terms. This week the company blocked The Women’s Centre from using its adverts because it had been found to be deceptive.
“We have a set of strict policies which govern what ads we do and do not allow on Google. We do not allow fraudulent or misrepresentative ads and when we discover ads that break our policies, we quickly take action,” a spokesman for Google said.
The site had specifically targeted women using Irish IP addresses who were entering search terms indicating that they were looking for information about how to access an abortion in the UK. Since the site’s removal from the top search results it has been replaced by a HSE website and the British Pregnancy Advisory service.
The Women’s Centre is facing closure after Simon Harris, the health minister, committed to pass legislation to regulate crisis pregnancy agencies that were offering misinformation. Mr Harris said that he was hoping to pass the law this summer.
Other anti-abortion groups and campaigners have also sought to use Google adverts to campaign ahead of a possible referendum on the Eighth Amendment. Over the course of the last meeting of the citizens assembly, a website alleging bias on the part of the forum paid to be the top search result.
Citizensassembly.info is a site registered through a proxy. On the site it is stated that it was set up by Josiah Burke, a business student from NUI Galway. Mr Burke is one of ten children in the Burke family in Castlebar. Members of the family are well-known as anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality campaigners. The family linked homosexuality to paedophilia during the marriage equality campaign, sparking a protest at the NUIG campus.
The website claims that the citizens’ assembly, which is considering the need to change Ireland’s abortion laws, is biased in favour of a repeal of the Eighth Amendment. At its last meeting, members of the assembly reacted angrily when Family and Life, an anti-abortion campaign group, used its presentation to claim that the assembly was biased and hearing evidence from “the abortion industry”. The 99 citizens had requested to hear from healthcare professionals who offered legal abortions to Irish women in the UK.
Family and Life has since sponsored its social media posts on sites like Facebook to claim that the assembly is biased.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, the assembly’s chair, has repeatedly defended the forum as being balanced and fair. At its next meeting in April the assembly members will ballot on what change, if any, should be made to Ireland’s constitutional near-ban on abortion. The assembly has considered leaving the Eighth Amendment as it is, amending it or replacing it with new legislation.
Source: The Times
March 17, 2017
A Whole Woman’s Health abortion clinic in Texas is reopening four years after an unconstitutional law caused it to close. This is a great sign for the rebuilding of abortion access in Texas since a restrictive law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last summer.
House Bill 2 said clinics had to meet the requirements of an ambulatory surgical center and that providers had to have admitting privileges at hospitals.
These terms are very difficult for clinics to fulfill, and would involve construction for many clinics. After the law was put into effect, half of Texas’s abortion clinics were forced to shut down. The number of clinics in the state dropped from 41 to 19 from 2013 to 2016.
But Whole Woman’s Health fought the law, taking it to the Supreme Court. Last June, the Supreme Court ruled Texas’s law was unconstitutional.
This was a cause for celebration for Whole Woman’s Health and pro-choice women across the country.
The Supreme Court said the burdens on women clearly outweighed the health and safety benefits of the law.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a concurrence opinion, Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.’
Before the Supreme Court ruled, these clinic closures caused problems for women seeking abortions.
Many women had to travel further for abortions with local clinics closed — and Texas is a big state.
Meanwhile, because there were fewer clinics, the remaining ones were experiencing long wait times for procedures. Delaying an abortion by a few days is significant as the pregnancy moves along.
Even with a positive Supreme Court ruling, Whole Woman’s Health knew it would take time to rebuild their service.
Clinics can’t just reopen with a snap of the fingers. It takes time and money for space, for rehiring staff, for setting up the medications and materials.
Andrea Ferrigno, Vice President of Whole Woman’s Health, told Elite Daily last year before the decision, The damage that these laws have caused, it’s going to take years to repair. In a statement on Thursday, Amy Hagstrom Miller, President and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, said she was committed to reopening the Austin clinic as soon as possible.
The Austin clinic was Whole Woman’s Health flagship clinic.
Abortion advocates are celebrating the reopening of the Austin Whole Woman’s Health clinic.
Greg Casar, a council member in Austin, said in a statement that “our community suffered a loss” when the clinic was forced to shut down. With the reopening of the Austin Whole Woman’s Health clinic, the residents of North Austin and beyond will have expanded access to safe, legal abortion care right here in our community. Stephanie Toti, the attorney who argued for Whole Woman’s Health in front of the Supreme Court, said, Today’s clinic reopening not only improves health care access for millions of Texas women, it shows the power of legal advocacy to move us toward a more just world.
This is great news for women in Texas, as it shows the clinics are recovering from the damage of the unconstitutional HB 2. With one more clinic open, the others will have less of a burden and more clients will be able to get responsible care.
Source: Elite Daily