A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected a bill (LD 1193) that would require the written consent of a parent or legal guardian before a minor or incapacitated individual could obtain an abortion, the Bangor Daily News reports.

Maine Legislature Rejects Parental Consent Measure

May 20, 2013 — A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected a bill (LD 1193) that would require the written consent of a parent or legal guardian before a minor or incapacitated individual could obtain an abortion, the Bangor Daily News reports.

The bill and two other abortion-related measures drew more than six hours of public testimony on Thursday. On Friday, seven of the committee's eight Democrats voted against recommending the bills, after giving them little discussion. Four of the panel's five Republicans supported the measures (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/18).

The bill -- introduced by state Rep. Stacey Guerin (R) on behalf of its primary sponsor, state Rep. Paul Davis (R) -- would mandate that women who could not meet the requirement would have to demonstrate to a judge that they are sufficiently mature and knowledgeable about the procedure or that they experienced abuse, neglect or sexual assault (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/16).

Guerin said the bill ensures that minors are "afforded our full counsel and advice before making a life-altering decision" (Leigh, WLBZ2, 5/16).

Ruth Lockhart, executive director of the Mabel Wadsworth Women's Health Care Center, said the bill "will only make it harder for our most vulnerable teenagers to get the care they need" (Bangor Daily News, 5/16).

A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected a bill (LD 1193) that would allow a family to file a wrongful death lawsuit if a fetus is killed during a crime against a woman who is at least 12 weeks pregnant, the Bangor Daily News reports.

Maine Legislature Rejects Bill on Crimes Against Pregnant Women

May 20, 2013 — A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected a bill (LD 1193) that would allow a family to file a wrongful death lawsuit if a fetus is killed during a crime against a woman who is at least 12 weeks pregnant, the Bangor Daily News reports.

The bill and two other abortion-related measures drew more than six hours of public testimony on Thursday. On Friday, seven of the committee's eight Democrats voted against recommending the bills, after giving them little discussion. Four of the panel's five Republicans supported the measures (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/18).

State Rep. Amy Volk (R) -- who proposed the measure -- said, "A family should be able to sue a drunk driver or negligent doctor who causes the death of an unborn child but currently this is not possible." She added that it "does not give any rights to the fetus. It gives rights to the mother."

However, Kate Brogan -- vice president for public affairs for the Family Planning Association of Maine -- said, "A pregnant woman and her fetus should never be considered as separate, independent or even adversarial entities."

Other opponents raised concern that the measure would enshrine in Maine law that a fetus is viable at 12 weeks. Volk said she is considering an amendment to change the 12-week limit to 24 weeks (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/16).

A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected a bill (LD 760) that would have required health care providers to provide patients with information on alternatives to abortion, the Bangor Daily News reports.

Maine Legislature Rejects Bill Requiring Physicians To Advise Patients on Alternatives to Abortion

May 20, 2013 — A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected a bill (LD 760) that would have required health care providers to provide patients with information on alternatives to abortion, the Bangor Daily News reports.

The bill and two other abortion-related measures drew more than six hours of public testimony on Thursday. On Friday, seven of the committee's eight Democrats voted against recommending the bills, after giving them little discussion. Four of the panel's five Republicans supported the measures (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/18).

The bill -- sponsored by state Rep. Eleanor Espling (R) -- would also remove a provision in current law under which the information is only distributed if the patient requests it. Under the bill, health care workers would have to provide patients with "scientifically accurate information about the fetus," information about health benefits for which a pregnant woman might qualify and counseling about the father's liability for support.

Espling said that the law is "about women having all the information they need to make important decisions in their lives and not being denied access to information they need to make those decisions."

Megan Hannon -- director of public policy at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England -- argued that the "sole intent of this bill is to shame, judge and confuse women." She added, "This bill would force doctors to tell women unnecessary, coercive information designed to change their minds about whether to end a pregnancy regardless of whether the patient wants the information" (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/16).

A group called No Taxes for Abortion Insurance plans to gather signatures for a proposal that would ban health plans sold in Michigan from offering abortion coverage, the AP/Detroit Free Press reports.

Mich. Petition Seeks To Ban Abortion Coverage

May 20, 2013 — A group called No Taxes for Abortion Insurance plans to gather signatures for a proposal that would ban health plans sold in Michigan from offering abortion coverage, the AP/Detroit Free Press reports (AP/Detroit Free Press, 5/17).

The proposal comes after Gov. Rick Snyder (R) in December vetoed insurance legislation (SB 1293, SB 1294) because it included a provision that barred health plans and employers from offering abortion coverage. Under that provision, women who wanted abortion coverage would have had to purchase it through a separate rider (Women's Health Policy Report, 2/25).

The new proposal also would require individuals or businesses seeking to purchase abortion coverage to buy supplemental policies.

Michigan's election board is scheduled to consider the petition this week. The Legislature would have 40 days to approve the measure once it is certified; if it fails to do so, the measure would be placed on the November 2014 ballot. If voters approve a ballot measure, the governor cannot override it (AP/Detroit Free Press, 5/17).

A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Arkansas from enforcing a ban (Act 301) on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy while a lawsuit challenging the law continues, the New York Times reports.

Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Ark. 12-Week Abortion Ban While Lawsuit Proceeds

May 20, 2013 — A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Arkansas from enforcing a ban (Act 301) on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy while a lawsuit challenging the law continues, the New York Times reports. The measure was scheduled to take effect Aug. 16 (Eckholm, New York Times, 5/17).

The law prohibits abortions after 12 weeks if a fetal heartbeat is detectable, with exceptions in cases of rape, incest, to save a woman's life or when the fetus has a fatal disorder.

Legal Arguments

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights last month filed a suit arguing that the ban violates Supreme Court precedent affirming that the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from banning abortions prior to fetal viability.

The state countered that ACLU and CRR lack standing to challenge the law because it has not taken effect yet (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/16). During arguments on Friday, state lawyers added that the law adheres to the spirit of Supreme Court precedent because the majority of abortions would still be permitted. The law would encourage women and doctors to seek earlier, "safer and more humane abortions," they said (New York Times, 5/17).

However, ACLU and CRR argued that health care providers -- who stand to lose their medical licenses for violating the law -- should not have to risk liability while waiting until the ban is enforced.

The suit was filed on behalf of two doctors, Louis Jerry Edwards and Tom Tvedten, both of whom are affiliated with Little Rock Family Planning Services (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/16).

Judge's Ruling

In her decision on Friday, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said that the ban "more than likely" is unconstitutional (Parker, Reuters, 5/17). She agreed with the plaintiffs that the "U.S Supreme Court has held unequivocally that a state may not ban abortion prior to viability" (New York Times, 5/17).

Webber Wright added that the law poses a "threat of irreparable harm" both to doctors, who "could face loss of their licenses," and to patients, who would not be able "to have abortions post 12-weeks but during that pre-viability period."

Webber Wright also suggested in her ruling that some provisions of the law might stand, noting that she did not believe "it would be an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion for the doctor to determine whether she has a fetal heartbeat and to tell her when she does" (Nuss, AP/USA Today, 5/17).

Reaction

State Sen. Jason Rapert (R) -- who sponsored the bill -- said he is "disappointed" about the injunction but optimistic about Webber Wright's statement that she would consider each of the law's provisions individually. "I believe that hopefully she will allow this statute to stand in full, but if not, I will at least take a partial win," he said.

CRR President Nancy Northup said in a statement that Webber Wright's ruling "ensures that the women of Arkansas will remain protected from this blatant unconstitutional assault on their health and fundamental reproductive rights." She added she is hopeful that the court would "ultimately strike down this harmful law permanently" and "uphold women's constitutional right to make their own decisions about their pregnancies" (Smith, Politico, 5/20).

The North Carolina House on Tuesday approved a bill (HB 716) that would prohibit physicians from performing an abortion if they have "knowledge, or an objective reason to know" that the sex of the fetus is a "significant factor" in the woman's request for the procedure, the AP/Charlotte Observer reports.

N.C. House Passes Ban on Abortions Based on Sex of the Fetus; Comm. Approves Parental Consent for Birth Control, STI Treatment

May 9, 2013 — The North Carolina House on Tuesday approved a bill (HB 716) that would prohibit physicians from performing an abortion if they have "knowledge, or an objective reason to know" that the sex of the fetus is a "significant factor" in the woman's request for the procedure, the AP/Charlotte Observer reports. The bill now heads to the Senate.

The bill would permit women or their relatives to sue physicians for damages for violating the ban. Physicians found to violate the requirement also could face fines. Under an approved floor amendment, physicians would not have a duty to ask a woman if she is seeking an abortion because of the sex of the fetus.

The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Pat McElraft (R), claimed that abortion is being used for sex selection in the U.S. The bill's sponsors did not provide specific evidence that the practice occurs in North Carolina, the AP/Observer reports.

Several House Democrats argued that the bill could encourage ethnic discrimination and racial profiling. State Rep. Alma Adams (D) said doctors might be reluctant to perform abortions because of the requirements. "We are putting doctors in a position now questioning the motives of these women," she said, adding, "I don't believe doctors would be willing to take that kind of risk" (Robertson, AP/Charlotte Observer, 5/7).

N.C. House Comm. Advances Parental Consent Bill

Separately, the North Carolina House Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday passed a bill (HB 693) that would require minors to obtain notarized parental consent to receive treatment for various reproductive and mental health services (Basset, Huffington Post, 5/7). The bill now proceeds to the full House.

Under the bill, minors who are not accompanied by a parent or guardian who can give consent would have to present written permission to obtain birth control or receive care for sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, substance abuse and mental illness.

The bill would allow exceptions in medical emergencies, if a minor obtained a judicial waiver from the consent requirement or if the requirement is prohibited under federal health funding regulations, according to the AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

If passed, the bill would make North Carolina the first state to require parental consent for STI services (Kardish, AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/7).

Opposition From Experts

Doctors and health advocates who testified against the bill said it would discourage teens from seeking treatment for STIs and mental health issues.

"Here's the bottom line: Everybody wants teenagers to talk to their parents, but public policy is not based on ideal families," said Paige Johnson, vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina. She added that teens who cannot talk to their parents because of abuse in the home or other reasons "need to be able to access professional care" (Huffington Post, 5/7).

A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Arkansas from enforcing a ban (Act 301) on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy while a lawsuit challenging the law continues, the New York Times reports.

Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Ark. 12-Week Abortion Ban While Lawsuit Proceeds

May 20, 2013 — A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Arkansas from enforcing a ban (Act 301) on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy while a lawsuit challenging the law continues, the New York Times reports. The measure was scheduled to take effect Aug. 16 (Eckholm, New York Times, 5/17).

The law prohibits abortions after 12 weeks if a fetal heartbeat is detectable, with exceptions in cases of rape, incest, to save a woman's life or when the fetus has a fatal disorder.

Legal Arguments

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights last month filed a suit arguing that the ban violates Supreme Court precedent affirming that the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from banning abortions prior to fetal viability.

The state countered that ACLU and CRR lack standing to challenge the law because it has not taken effect yet (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/16). During arguments on Friday, state lawyers added that the law adheres to the spirit of Supreme Court precedent because the majority of abortions would still be permitted. The law would encourage women and doctors to seek earlier, "safer and more humane abortions," they said (New York Times, 5/17).

However, ACLU and CRR argued that health care providers -- who stand to lose their medical licenses for violating the law -- should not have to risk liability while waiting until the ban is enforced.

The suit was filed on behalf of two doctors, Louis Jerry Edwards and Tom Tvedten, both of whom are affiliated with Little Rock Family Planning Services (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/16).

Judge's Ruling

In her decision on Friday, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said that the ban "more than likely" is unconstitutional (Parker, Reuters, 5/17). She agreed with the plaintiffs that the "U.S Supreme Court has held unequivocally that a state may not ban abortion prior to viability" (New York Times, 5/17).

Webber Wright added that the law poses a "threat of irreparable harm" both to doctors, who "could face loss of their licenses," and to patients, who would not be able "to have abortions post 12-weeks but during that pre-viability period."

Webber Wright also suggested in her ruling that some provisions of the law might stand, noting that she did not believe "it would be an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion for the doctor to determine whether she has a fetal heartbeat and to tell her when she does" (Nuss, AP/USA Today, 5/17).

Reaction

State Sen. Jason Rapert (R) -- who sponsored the bill -- said he is "disappointed" about the injunction but optimistic about Webber Wright's statement that she would consider each of the law's provisions individually. "I believe that hopefully she will allow this statute to stand in full, but if not, I will at least take a partial win," he said.

CRR President Nancy Northup said in a statement that Webber Wright's ruling "ensures that the women of Arkansas will remain protected from this blatant unconstitutional assault on their health and fundamental reproductive rights." She added she is hopeful that the court would "ultimately strike down this harmful law permanently" and "uphold women's constitutional right to make their own decisions about their pregnancies" (Smith, Politico, 5/20).

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Friday that he will expand his proposed bill (HR 1797) that would ban abortion later in pregnancy in Washington, D.C., to apply nationwide, the Huffington Post reports.

Rep. Franks Proposes Nationwide Ban on Abortions After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy

May 20, 2013 — Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Friday that he will expand his proposed bill (HR 1797) that would ban abortion later in pregnancy in Washington, D.C., to apply nationwide, the Huffington Post reports.

The bill -- the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act -- would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed theory that a fetus can feel pain at that point. The measure directly challenges the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which prohibits banning abortion prior to viability, typically up to 24 weeks (Bassett, Huffington Post, 5/17).

Last year, Franks introduced a nearly identical bill (HR 3803) that failed under a suspension of the rules, a procedure under which bills need the support of at least two-thirds of House members to pass (Women's Health Policy Report, 4/30).

Decision To Expand Abortion Ban

In a statement, Franks said the case of Kermit Gosnell spurred him to alter his bill to apply beyond the district. Last week, Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder for the deaths of infants born alive after illegal abortion procedures.

"Indeed, let us not forget that, had Kermit Gosnell dismembered these babies before they had traveled down the birth canal only moments earlier, he would have, in many places nationwide, been performing an entirely legal procedure," Franks said.

Abortions performed after 24 weeks are rare; CDC estimates that slightly more than 1% of procedures are conducted after that time and that most of those involve a severe fetal abnormality or are to protect the health of the woman (Huffington Post, 5/17).

This Week's Hearing

Franks will revise his measure Thursday at a hearing of House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. The bill could be approved by the House, but it has little chance of passing the Democrat-controlled Senate, according to The Hill's "Healthwatch" (Viebeck, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 5/17).

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) already planned to testify at the hearing against the bill on behalf of D.C. residents. In a statement Friday, she pledged to continue to fight for the measure's defeat now that it applies to many more women.

"With the help of women nationwide, we defeated the D.C. abortion ban bill on the House floor last Congress," Norton said, adding, "Now that the Franks bill will expressly target all U.S. women, we can expect an even stronger national response to this attack on women's health" (Huffington Post, 5/17).

A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected three bills that would have increased abortion restrictions in the state, the Bangor Daily News reports.

Three Abortion-Related Measures Rejected in Maine Legislature

May 20, 2013 — A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected three bills that would have increased abortion restrictions in the state, the Bangor Daily News reports.

The bills drew more than six hours of public testimony on Thursday. On Friday, seven of the committee's eight Democrats voted against recommending the bills, after giving them little discussion. Four of the panel's five Republicans supported the measures (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/18).

Counseling Bill

One of the measures (LD 760) -- sponsored by state Rep. Eleanor Espling (R) -- would require health care providers to provide patients with information on alternatives to abortion. It also would remove a provision in current law under which the information is only distributed if the patient requests it.

Under the bill, health care workers would have to provide patients with "scientifically accurate information about the fetus," information about health benefits for which a pregnant woman might qualify and counseling about the father's liability for support.

Espling said that the law is "about women having all the information they need to make important decisions in their lives and not being denied access to information they need to make those decisions."

Megan Hannon -- director of public policy at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England -- argued that the "sole intent of this bill is to shame, judge and confuse women." She added, "This bill would force doctors to tell women unnecessary, coercive information designed to change their minds about whether to end a pregnancy regardless of whether the patient wants the information."

'Wrongful Death' Bill

State Rep. Amy Volk (R) proposed a bill (LD 1193) that would allow a family to file a wrongful death lawsuit if a fetus is killed during a crime against a woman who is at least 12 weeks pregnant. "A family should be able to sue a drunk driver or negligent doctor who causes the death of an unborn child but currently this is not possible," Volk said of the bill, adding that it "does not give any rights to the fetus. It gives rights to the mother."

However, Kate Brogan -- vice president for public affairs for the Family Planning Association of Maine -- said, "A pregnant woman and her fetus should never be considered as separate, independent or even adversarial entities."

Other opponents raised concern that the measure would enshrine in Maine law that a fetus is viable at 12 weeks. Volk said she is considering an amendment to change the 12-week limit to 24 weeks.

Bill on Consent for Minors, Incapacitated Individuals

A third measure (LD 1193) -- introduced by state Rep. Stacey Guerin (R) on behalf of its primary sponsor, state Rep. Paul Davis (R) -- would require the written consent of a parent or legal guardian before a minor or incapacitated individual could obtain an abortion. Women who could not meet the requirement would have to demonstrate to a judge that they are sufficiently mature and knowledgeable about the procedure or that they experienced abuse, neglect or sexual assault (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/16).

Guerin said the bill ensures that minors are "afforded our full counsel and advice before making a life-altering decision" (Leigh, WLBZ2, 5/16).

Ruth Lockhart, executive director of the Mabel Wadsworth Women's Health Care Center, said the bill "will only make it harder for our most vulnerable teenagers to get the care they need" (Bangor Daily News, 5/16).

A group called No Taxes for Abortion Insurance plans to gather signatures for a proposal that would ban health plans sold in Michigan from offering abortion coverage, the AP/Detroit Free Press reports.

Mich. Petition Seeks To Ban Abortion Coverage

May 20, 2013 — A group called No Taxes for Abortion Insurance plans to gather signatures for a proposal that would ban health plans sold in Michigan from offering abortion coverage, the AP/Detroit Free Press reports (AP/Detroit Free Press, 5/17).

The proposal comes after Gov. Rick Snyder (R) in December vetoed insurance legislation (SB 1293, SB 1294) because it included a provision that barred health plans and employers from offering abortion coverage. Under that provision, women who wanted abortion coverage would have had to purchase it through a separate rider (Women's Health Policy Report, 2/25).

The new proposal also would require individuals or businesses seeking to purchase abortion coverage to buy supplemental policies.

Michigan's election board is scheduled to consider the petition this week. The Legislature would have 40 days to approve the measure once it is certified; if it fails to do so, the measure would be placed on the November 2014 ballot. If voters approve a ballot measure, the governor cannot override it (AP/Detroit Free Press, 5/17).

Actress Angelina Jolie's disclosure last week of her preventive double mastectomy "raises public awareness of the genetic testing she used, as well as concerns about insurance coverage for this kind of testing," according to a New York Times editorial.

BRCA Test 'May Be Lifesaving,' But Women Must Know Options, New York Times Editorial States

May 20, 2013 — Actress Angelina Jolie's disclosure last week of her preventive double mastectomy "raises public awareness of the genetic testing she used, as well as concerns about insurance coverage for this kind of testing," according to a New York Times editorial.

Jolie said she decided to have the procedure after being tested for genetic flaws in the BRCA1 gene -- which is linked to breast and ovarian cancers -- and finding that she had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer.

Most insurers do not cover BRCA testing unless a woman's family history suggests she is at an increased risk. The policy "makes good sense," according to the editorial, which notes that "[t]est results can be unclear and may lead to unneeded surgery or treatments that have the potential for serious harm."

While the test might be "lifesaving" for some, the editorial notes that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises that "[e]ven women who think their risk is high should take a cautious approach," including talking to their doctors about whether genetic counseling is needed and considering the pros and cons of their options (New York Times, 5/17).

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Friday that he will expand his proposed bill (HR 1797) that would ban abortion later in pregnancy in Washington, D.C., to apply nationwide, the Huffington Post reports.

Rep. Franks Proposes Nationwide Ban on Abortions After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy

May 20, 2013 — Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Friday that he will expand his proposed bill (HR 1797) that would ban abortion later in pregnancy in Washington, D.C., to apply nationwide, the Huffington Post reports.

The bill -- the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act -- would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed theory that a fetus can feel pain at that point. The measure directly challenges the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which prohibits banning abortion prior to viability, typically up to 24 weeks (Bassett, Huffington Post, 5/17).

Last year, Franks introduced a nearly identical bill (HR 3803) that failed under a suspension of the rules, a procedure under which bills need the support of at least two-thirds of House members to pass (Women's Health Policy Report, 4/30).

Decision To Expand Abortion Ban

In a statement, Franks said the case of Kermit Gosnell spurred him to alter his bill to apply beyond the district. Last week, Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder for the deaths of infants born alive after illegal abortion procedures.

"Indeed, let us not forget that, had Kermit Gosnell dismembered these babies before they had traveled down the birth canal only moments earlier, he would have, in many places nationwide, been performing an entirely legal procedure," Franks said.

Abortions performed after 24 weeks are rare; CDC estimates that slightly more than 1% of procedures are conducted after that time and that most of those involve a severe fetal abnormality or are to protect the health of the woman (Huffington Post, 5/17).

This Week's Hearing

Franks will revise his measure Thursday at a hearing of House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. The bill could be approved by the House, but it has little chance of passing the Democrat-controlled Senate, according to The Hill's "Healthwatch" (Viebeck, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 5/17).

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) already planned to testify at the hearing against the bill on behalf of D.C. residents. In a statement Friday, she pledged to continue to fight for the measure's defeat now that it applies to many more women.

"With the help of women nationwide, we defeated the D.C. abortion ban bill on the House floor last Congress," Norton said, adding, "Now that the Franks bill will expressly target all U.S. women, we can expect an even stronger national response to this attack on women's health" (Huffington Post, 5/17).

A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Arkansas from enforcing a ban (Act 301) on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy while a lawsuit challenging the law continues, the New York Times reports.

Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Ark. 12-Week Abortion Ban While Lawsuit Proceeds

May 20, 2013 — A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Arkansas from enforcing a ban (Act 301) on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy while a lawsuit challenging the law continues, the New York Times reports. The measure was scheduled to take effect Aug. 16 (Eckholm, New York Times, 5/17).

The law prohibits abortions after 12 weeks if a fetal heartbeat is detectable, with exceptions in cases of rape, incest, to save a woman's life or when the fetus has a fatal disorder.

Legal Arguments

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights last month filed a suit arguing that the ban violates Supreme Court precedent affirming that the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from banning abortions prior to fetal viability.

The state countered that ACLU and CRR lack standing to challenge the law because it has not taken effect yet (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/16). During arguments on Friday, state lawyers added that the law adheres to the spirit of Supreme Court precedent because the majority of abortions would still be permitted. The law would encourage women and doctors to seek earlier, "safer and more humane abortions," they said (New York Times, 5/17).

However, ACLU and CRR argued that health care providers -- who stand to lose their medical licenses for violating the law -- should not have to risk liability while waiting until the ban is enforced.

The suit was filed on behalf of two doctors, Louis Jerry Edwards and Tom Tvedten, both of whom are affiliated with Little Rock Family Planning Services (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/16).

Judge's Ruling

In her decision on Friday, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said that the ban "more than likely" is unconstitutional (Parker, Reuters, 5/17). She agreed with the plaintiffs that the "U.S Supreme Court has held unequivocally that a state may not ban abortion prior to viability" (New York Times, 5/17).

Webber Wright added that the law poses a "threat of irreparable harm" both to doctors, who "could face loss of their licenses," and to patients, who would not be able "to have abortions post 12-weeks but during that pre-viability period."

Webber Wright also suggested in her ruling that some provisions of the law might stand, noting that she did not believe "it would be an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion for the doctor to determine whether she has a fetal heartbeat and to tell her when she does" (Nuss, AP/USA Today, 5/17).

Reaction

State Sen. Jason Rapert (R) -- who sponsored the bill -- said he is "disappointed" about the injunction but optimistic about Webber Wright's statement that she would consider each of the law's provisions individually. "I believe that hopefully she will allow this statute to stand in full, but if not, I will at least take a partial win," he said.

CRR President Nancy Northup said in a statement that Webber Wright's ruling "ensures that the women of Arkansas will remain protected from this blatant unconstitutional assault on their health and fundamental reproductive rights." She added she is hopeful that the court would "ultimately strike down this harmful law permanently" and "uphold women's constitutional right to make their own decisions about their pregnancies" (Smith, Politico, 5/20).

A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected three bills that would have increased abortion restrictions in the state, the Bangor Daily News reports.

Three Abortion-Related Measures Rejected in Maine Legislature

May 20, 2013 — A Maine legislative committee on Friday rejected three bills that would have increased abortion restrictions in the state, the Bangor Daily News reports.

The bills drew more than six hours of public testimony on Thursday. On Friday, seven of the committee's eight Democrats voted against recommending the bills, after giving them little discussion. Four of the panel's five Republicans supported the measures (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/18).

Counseling Bill

One of the measures (LD 760) -- sponsored by state Rep. Eleanor Espling (R) -- would require health care providers to provide patients with information on alternatives to abortion. It also would remove a provision in current law under which the information is only distributed if the patient requests it.

Under the bill, health care workers would have to provide patients with "scientifically accurate information about the fetus," information about health benefits for which a pregnant woman might qualify and counseling about the father's liability for support.

Espling said that the law is "about women having all the information they need to make important decisions in their lives and not being denied access to information they need to make those decisions."

Megan Hannon -- director of public policy at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England -- argued that the "sole intent of this bill is to shame, judge and confuse women." She added, "This bill would force doctors to tell women unnecessary, coercive information designed to change their minds about whether to end a pregnancy regardless of whether the patient wants the information."

'Wrongful Death' Bill

State Rep. Amy Volk (R) proposed a bill (LD 1193) that would allow a family to file a wrongful death lawsuit if a fetus is killed during a crime against a woman who is at least 12 weeks pregnant. "A family should be able to sue a drunk driver or negligent doctor who causes the death of an unborn child but currently this is not possible," Volk said of the bill, adding that it "does not give any rights to the fetus. It gives rights to the mother."

However, Kate Brogan -- vice president for public affairs for the Family Planning Association of Maine -- said, "A pregnant woman and her fetus should never be considered as separate, independent or even adversarial entities."

Other opponents raised concern that the measure would enshrine in Maine law that a fetus is viable at 12 weeks. Volk said she is considering an amendment to change the 12-week limit to 24 weeks.

Bill on Consent for Minors, Incapacitated Individuals

A third measure (LD 1193) -- introduced by state Rep. Stacey Guerin (R) on behalf of its primary sponsor, state Rep. Paul Davis (R) -- would require the written consent of a parent or legal guardian before a minor or incapacitated individual could obtain an abortion. Women who could not meet the requirement would have to demonstrate to a judge that they are sufficiently mature and knowledgeable about the procedure or that they experienced abuse, neglect or sexual assault (Cousins, Bangor Daily News, 5/16).

Guerin said the bill ensures that minors are "afforded our full counsel and advice before making a life-altering decision" (Leigh, WLBZ2, 5/16).

Ruth Lockhart, executive director of the Mabel Wadsworth Women's Health Care Center, said the bill "will only make it harder for our most vulnerable teenagers to get the care they need" (Bangor Daily News, 5/16).

Actress Angelina Jolie's disclosure last week of her preventive double mastectomy "raises public awareness of the genetic testing she used, as well as concerns about insurance coverage for this kind of testing," according to a New York Times editorial.

BRCA Test 'May Be Lifesaving,' But Women Must Know Options, New York Times Editorial States

May 20, 2013 — Actress Angelina Jolie's disclosure last week of her preventive double mastectomy "raises public awareness of the genetic testing she used, as well as concerns about insurance coverage for this kind of testing," according to a New York Times editorial.

Jolie said she decided to have the procedure after being tested for genetic flaws in the BRCA1 gene -- which is linked to breast and ovarian cancers -- and finding that she had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer.

Most insurers do not cover BRCA testing unless a woman's family history suggests she is at an increased risk. The policy "makes good sense," according to the editorial, which notes that "[t]est results can be unclear and may lead to unneeded surgery or treatments that have the potential for serious harm."

While the test might be "lifesaving" for some, the editorial notes that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises that "[e]ven women who think their risk is high should take a cautious approach," including talking to their doctors about whether genetic counseling is needed and considering the pros and cons of their options (New York Times, 5/17).

A group called No Taxes for Abortion Insurance plans to gather signatures for a proposal that would ban health plans sold in Michigan from offering abortion coverage, the AP/Detroit Free Press reports.

Mich. Petition Seeks To Ban Abortion Coverage

May 20, 2013 — A group called No Taxes for Abortion Insurance plans to gather signatures for a proposal that would ban health plans sold in Michigan from offering abortion coverage, the AP/Detroit Free Press reports (AP/Detroit Free Press, 5/17).

The proposal comes after Gov. Rick Snyder (R) in December vetoed insurance legislation (SB 1293, SB 1294) because it included a provision that barred health plans and employers from offering abortion coverage. Under that provision, women who wanted abortion coverage would have had to purchase it through a separate rider (Women's Health Policy Report, 2/25).

The new proposal also would require individuals or businesses seeking to purchase abortion coverage to buy supplemental policies.

Michigan's election board is scheduled to consider the petition this week. The Legislature would have 40 days to approve the measure once it is certified; if it fails to do so, the measure would be placed on the November 2014 ballot. If voters approve a ballot measure, the governor cannot override it (AP/Detroit Free Press, 5/17).

The North Carolina House on Thursday approved a measure (HB 730) that would prohibit health plans offered through the state's health insurance marketplace from covering abortion, the AP/Henderson Times-News reports.

N.C. House Approves Bill Prohibiting Abortion Coverage in State Insurance Marketplace

May 17, 2013 — The North Carolina House on Thursday approved a measure (HB 730) that would prohibit health plans offered through the state's health insurance marketplace from covering abortion, the AP/Henderson Times-News reports. The bill now heads to the Senate (AP/Henderson Times-News, 5/16).

The measure also would prohibit city and county governments' health plans from including abortion coverage that exceeds that offered through the state employee health plan. The state employee health plan covers abortion only in instances of rape, incest or when a woman's life is in danger (WRAL, 5/15).

In addition, the bill would allow all health care professionals to refuse to participate in abortion care. Current law only specifies that nurses and physicians may refuse to provide such care (Jarvis, Raleigh News & Observer, 5/15).

House Drops Contraception Provision

The bill originally included language that would have allowed "any employer, whether incorporated or not and whether for-profit or not, that has a religious, moral, or ethical objection" to contraception to exclude contraceptive coverage from its health plan.

House lawmakers removed the provision from the bill on Wednesday after it passed out of committee. State Rep. Bob Steinburg (R) warned the panel that the provision could hurt the bill's prospects on the House floor (WRAL, 5/15).

"To suggest that in the 21st century that women would be prevented from having access to birth control -- even as far to the right as I am -- is going off the cliff. This is going too far," he said (Raleigh News & Observer, 5/15).

A federal appeals court panel on Thursday seemed "skeptical" that Liberty University could challenge the federal contraceptive coverage rules, but one judge appeared receptive to the school's arguments against the Affordable Care Act's (PL 111-148) requirement that most employers offer health insurance coverage to their workers, Politico reports.

Appeals Court Hears Christian University's Suit Over Health Care Law, Contraceptive Coverage Rules

May 17, 2013 — A federal appeals court panel on Thursday seemed "skeptical" that Liberty University could challenge the federal contraceptive coverage rules, but one judge appeared receptive to the school's arguments against the Affordable Care Act's (PL 111-148) requirement that most employers offer health insurance coverage to their workers, Politico reports.

When the suit was first filed in 2010, it challenged both the employer mandate and the requirement that individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. The university also later claimed that the individual and employer mandates require it to comply with rules mandating it offer contraceptive coverage for its workers, which it argues goes against its religious beliefs (Haberkorn, Politico, 5/17).

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the original case when Liberty first presented it in 2011, saying that it could not rule on the matter because the Anti-Injunction Act prevents suits over a tax that has yet to be levied.

However, the Supreme Court last year ordered the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of the high court's ruling in a separate challenge to the ACA, which found that the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply to the individual mandate (Women's Health Policy Report, 11/26/12).

The appeals panel likely will rule in the summer, according to Politico (Politico, 5/17).

Judges Consider Challenge to Contraceptive Coverage Rules

During Thursday's hearing, Liberty School of Law Dean Mathew Staver said the conservative Christian university faces millions of dollars in penalties if it refuses to offer health insurance coverage that violates its religious beliefs. The school contends that some contraceptives have abortion-inducing properties (AP/Washington Post, 5/16).

Alisa Klein -- an attorney with the Department of Justice -- called Liberty's claims about the contraceptive coverage requirements speculative and hypothetical, given that the rules have not been finalized (Thompson, Lynchburg News & Advance, 5/16).

She also said the school's health plans already meet the law's minimum requirements without having to add coverage it finds objectionable.

The judges seemed inclined to rule that the case is still not ripe for consideration, according to the AP/Washington Post. Judge Diana Gribbon Motz noted that the "regulations are tentative," while Judge Andre Davis asked Staver why the school can't wait to seek "a preliminary injunction when the regulations come down?" (AP/Washington Post, 5/16).

The judges also seemed receptive to Klein's argument that Liberty cannot challenge the contraceptive coverage rules because it did not include that complaint in its original filing. Davis noted that the current "case is very different from the case [Liberty] filed a couple years ago."

Arguments Over Employer, Individual Mandates

Although the judges seemed to suggest they might not decide the contraceptive coverage issue directly, they are likely to rule on the employer mandate claim, according to Politico. Liberty's suit is the sole case to challenge that requirement.

Klein argued that Congress has a long history of regulating employer health plans under the Commerce Clause and that the employer mandate is no different.

However, Motz said that the Supreme Court's June 2012 decision -- in which it upheld the individual mandate under the government's taxing power, not under the Commerce Clause -- "puts a new light ... on the Commerce Clause" (Politico, 5/17).

In court papers, the university has argued that the Supreme Court's finding that the ACA's penalties on individuals are a tax should invalidate the law because tax legislation is required to originate in the House, and the ACA originated in the Senate. However, that argument was not mentioned at Thursday's hearing, which focused on the employer requirements (AP/Washington Post, 5/16).

President Obama summoned Pentagon officials to the White House on Thursday to discuss the problem of sexual violence in the military, while lawmakers offered legislative strategies to address the problem, The Hill's "DEFCON Hill" reports.

President Obama Deplores Sexual Violence in Military as Lawmakers Offer Legislation

May 17, 2013 — President Obama summoned Pentagon officials to the White House on Thursday to discuss the problem of sexual violence in the military, while lawmakers offered legislative strategies to address the problem, The Hill's "DEFCON Hill" reports (Herb, "DEFCON HILL," The Hill, 5/16).

The meeting came after the Pentagon's release last week of a report showing that military sexual assaults have increased by 35% to 26,000, up from 19,300 in 2010. It also noted that only a fraction of victims report assaults. Obama reacted to the new figures by calling for a "no tolerance" approach to sexual crimes in the military (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/10).

Obama continued that line of rhetoric in a brief session with reporters after the meeting. Sexual assault is "dangerous to our national security" and "not a sideshow," he said, adding, "This goes to the heart and the core of who we are and how effective we're going to be" ("DEFCON Hill," The Hill, 5/16). He noted that military officials have told him "that they're ashamed by some of what's happened" (Whitlock, Washington Post, 5/16).

Obama asked Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to lead a process that would hold offenders accountable and protect sexual assault survivors. "When victims do come forward, they deserve justice," he said, adding, "Perpetrators have to experience consequences." However, no specific initiatives were announced (Shanker/Steinhauer, New York Times, 5/16).

"There's no silver bullet to solving this problem," Obama cautioned, adding, "This is going to require a sustained effort over a long period of time" (Gaskell, Politico, 5/16).

Legislative Response

Also on Thursday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation (S 967) that would give military prosecutors, rather than commanders, the authority to decide which cases to prosecute. The measure is among a series of legislative proposals introduced in recent weeks to address the problem of sexual assault in the military ("DEFCON Hill," The Hill, 5/16).

Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced a bill earlier this month that would provide sexual assault survivors with a military lawyer to help guide them through the claim filing process. Meanwhile, legislation by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) would address barriers that prevent sexual assault victims from getting disability benefits (Fox, U.S. News & World Report, 5/17).

In addition, Hagel has offered a number of initiatives to curb sexual assault -- including a proposal to remove military commanders' ability to overturn guilty verdicts -- which will likely be included in this year's Defense authorization bill. Other proposals that could be considered during debate of the bill range from expanding an Air Force program that provides sexual assault counseling to creating new whistleblower protections for victims and strengthening requirements for sexual assault prevention efforts ("DEFCON Hill," The Hill, 5/16).

We've compiled some of the most thought-provoking commentaries from around the Web. Catch up on the conversation with bloggers from the National Women's Law Center, Ms. Magazine and more.

Blogs Comment on Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, Global Reproductive Health Issues, More

May 17, 2013 — We've compiled some of the most thought-provoking commentaries from around the Web. Catch up on the conversation with bloggers from the National Women's Law Center, Ms. Magazine and more.

PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT: "'We Don't Pay You To Pee' and Other Reasons Why We Need the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act," Cortelyou Kenney/Liz Watson, National Women's Law Center's "Womenstake": "Across the country, pregnant women face discrimination in the workplace when their employers refuse to make adjustments to their job duties such as honoring lifting restrictions, allowing them to stay off high ladders, or even just letting them go to the bathroom to vomit," write Kenney - a NWLC fellow -- and Watson -- a senior adviser. Although the "Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) outlawed this type of discrimination in 1978," many lower courts have "misinterpreted the PDA, holding incorrectly that it permits employers to provide accommodations to workers with disabilities or on-the-job injuries but deny those accommodations to pregnant workers," they note. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (S 942, HR 1975) -- introduced this week by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) -- would allow "Congress to set the record straight: a temporary physical impairment that can easily be accommodated should not cost a pregnant worker her job," Kenney and Watson write (Kenney/Watson, "Womenstake," NWLC, 5/14).

GLOBAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: "Poorer Countries Get Price Cut on HPV Vaccine -- But Is It Enough?" Ponta Abadi, Ms. Magazine blog: Although "[s]ome of the world's poorest countries are getting price cuts for [human papillomavirus] vaccines that protect against 70 percent of all cervical cancers," the prices are "still too high," Abadi writes. She notes, "For one out of four people in developing countries, it would take more than three days to earn enough to get" a single dose of the HPV vaccine at the reduced cost of about $4.50, "and more than 10 days to have enough for the full three-dose treatment," which is assuming "they don't need money for anything else," such as food. However, Abadi notes that "the price drop is at least a step in the right direction" (Abadi, Ms. Magazine blog, 5/16).

ABORTION-RIGHTS OPPONENTS: "Dr Tiller's Killer Accused of Threatening Another Abortion Provider," Kaite Halper, Feministing: Scott Roeder -- who was convicted of fatally shooting George Tiller, a Wichita, Kan., abortion provider, in May 2009 -- is now accused of threatening Julie Burkhart, executive director of Trust Women Foundation, which opened a clinic at Tiller's former facility in April, Halper writes. Roeder reportedly was recorded on the phone stating that Burkhart's reopening of the clinic is "almost like putting a target on your back." Halper writers that if Roeder is convicted of the new charges, he could face discipline in prison, such as "loss of privileges and extra uncompensated work" (Halper, Feministing, 5/16).

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: "Harry Reid to RH Reality Check: Military Sexual Assault Reporting System Needs Fixing," Adele Stan, RH Reality Check: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) "had few kind words for military leaders as news hit the media of yet another sexual assault scandal involving a military officer who was designated to handle sexual assault cases," Stan writes. Reid told reporters that "[t]his is a big story" and that the "present system is not working well." However, Stan notes that Reid "stopped just short of endorsing legislation" proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) that would remove the handling of sexual assault cases from the chain of command, saying he had not read the bill yet (Stan, RH Reality Check, 5/15).

What others are saying about violence against women:

~ "Solving the Sexual-Assault Crisis in the Military," Jena McGregor, Washington Post's "On Leadership."

NEED FOR LEGAL ABORTION: "Why Is El Salvador Letting a Woman Die?" Marianne Møllmann, RH Reality Check: "El Salvador's government is deliberately denying lifesaving treatment to [a] woman, for no reason other than that she is pregnant," writes Amnesty International's Møllmann, adding, "The only reasonable explanation for the public stand-off is that Beatriz and other resource-poor women are politically expendable, and that crossing the Catholic Church is seen as worse than being hung out in the press as inhumane." Møllmann writes that "governments owe everyone the same rights, regardless of faith, sex, family status, or ability to pay for votes or medical treatment." She concludes, "I don't understand what El Salvador's government has to gain from watching this young woman die a preventable death. And I don't understand how we can continue to allow this to happen" (Møllmann, RH Reality Check, 5/16).

INFERTILITY: "A Note of Caution: Freezing Eggs Is Not a Silver Billet for Age-Related Infertility," Miriam Zoll, RH Reality Check: A "$4 billion industry is driving the public discourse about often unproven" assisted reproductive technologies "through a lens that focuses attention on the minority of successes rather than the whole messy, complicated story," writes Zoll in response to a Wall Street Journal article encouraging "women to ward off age-related infertility by simply freezing their eggs." Zoll points out that the procedure may have provided the author -- Sarah Elizabeth Richards -- with "a sense of hope and temporary emotional equilibrium," but of the "1.5 million [fertility] treatments performed globally, 1.1 million failed -- a 77 percent failure rate." She writes that Richards, like others faced with "scarce, biased or non-existent" evidence and information must hope for the best. But if Richards' plan fails, she will "join the ranks of millions of men and women who ... have experienced involuntary biological childlessness as a result of delaying parenthood and relying on science for last-minute miracles," Zoll concludes (Zoll, RH Reality Check, 5/15).

BREAST CANCER: "How it Feels To Lose Your Breasts," Liz Kulze, The Atlantic: "[A]s equalizing and humanizing as [Angelina] Jolie's words were ... it is both flippant and naive not to acknowledge that [mastectomies change] women, however intact their femininity remains," writes Kulze in a piece discussing the experiences of her grandmother and a friend who underwent the procedure. She writes that women who have mastectomies might "'feel like a eunuch' in the words of my grandmother, or 'naked,' 'self-conscious' and 'haunted by a void,' in the words of my friend, but they are women who have done what they had to do, understanding that surgery is no panacea." Kulze's friend said that a woman is "'forever changed'" after the procedure, to which Kulze adds, "And so is every survivor, of any trauma, no matter their sex or level of strength" (Kulze, The Atlantic, 5/15).

What others are saying about breast cancer:

~ "I'm 25 and I Have the Angie Gene," Abby Haglage, Daily Beast's "Women in the World."

~ "Why I Chose Not To Get Tested for BRCA Genes," Florence Williams, Slate's "XX Factor."

TEEN PREGNANCY AND PARENTING: "Why It's Important To Support Students With Kids," Kristina Chew, Care2: "The reason many students who are parents do not get their degrees is directly related to the challenge of balancing child care and schoolwork," Chew writes, citing a report from the American Association of University Women that found "68 percent of mothers who attend community college spend an average of 30 hours a week in caring for their children," compared with 42% of students who are fathers. She continues, "Without access to childcare, many students who are mothers drop out of school." Chew writes, "Along with providing more and adequate child care funding for students who are parents, we also need to focus on making colleges and universities be as supportive of students with children of their own as possible." She concludes, "Such support can be via grants and other kinds of funding but also through understanding about the need for flexibility in taking classes and completing coursework -- about all the demands on a person's time that being a parent, and a student, can make" (Chew, Care2, 5/15).

What others are saying about teen pregnancy and parenting:

~ "Will the Teen Mom Shaming Ever Stop?" Verónica Bayetti Flores, Feministing.