Pro-Choice Activists Could Still Repeal Michigan’s New ‘Rape Insurance’ Law

BY TARA CULP-RESSLER/Think Progress

Last week, the Michigan legislature approved a measure that prevents women from using their private insurance plans to cover abortion services, even in cases of rape and incest. The legislation, widely decried as a “rape insurance” bill, incited fierce debate. One Democratic lawmaker shared her personal story of sexual assault on the floor, pointing out that women shouldn’t be required to purchase a separate insurance rider in case they become pregnant from rape at some point in the future. Nonetheless, the bill passed along mostly party lines.

Since the legislation was “citizen-initiated” — the anti-choice community collected over 300,000 signatures to provoke a vote on the measure — it doesn’t need the governor’s signature, and will become law 90 days after lawmakers adjourn for the year. But reproductive rights activists still have options left. They could circulate a petition of their own to collect enough signatures for a public referendum, which would put the measure up for a statewide vote.

Pro-choice activists are already considering that type of ballot drive, according to the Associated Press. Democrats in the legislature are vowing to keep the pressure on this issue well into 2014. If they’re successful, the insurance restriction will come up for a popular vote around the same time as next November’s legislative elections.

In order to advance a referendum, Michigan state law requires activists to collect 161,305 signatures within 90 days of the legislature’s adjournment. That’s considerably fewer signatures than the anti-choice community needed to get this issue up for a vote. They were required to collect 258,088, a threshold which they ended up exceeding.

Women’s health groups say there’s plenty of evidence to suggest voters will reject the measure if it’s subject to a popular vote. According to Michigan’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), some of the lawmakers who voted for the bill represent districts where 60 to 70 percent of constituents are opposed to it. “They didn’t see this as an abortion issue,” ACLU lobbyist Shelli Weisberg explained to the AP. “They saw it as a coverage issue, as a privacy issue, as an issue that deals with commerce and not legislation. They didn’t want the Legislature trying to interfere with medical decisions.”

That’s the same reason that the state’s Republican governor, Rick Snyder, vetoed the measure last year. Snyder pointed out that the legislation went too far to interfere in the private insurance market.

Opponents are planning to gather on Monday morning to rally against the new law. “This is wrong. This is disgusting. We cannot let this prevail. Join us in the fight to repeal the Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act,” the Facebook event reads.

Nonetheless, Michigan is hardly the only state with this type of restriction on the books. Barring insurance coverage for abortion services is a popular method of attacking reproductive rights. Eight other states — Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah — also restrict abortion coverage in all private insurance plans offered in the state. And nearly two dozen states bar Obamacare’s new insurance marketplaces from including plans that cover abortion.

A cowardly move from the new Gov. Ultrasound

By Steve Benen/The Maddow Blog

Every conceivable element of this story is offensive.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law on Friday new abortion restrictions that opponents said could lead to the closing of two of the state's four abortion clinics. [...]

The law requires women to undergo an ultrasound before they get an abortion and doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics.

So, in addition to forcing two of the state's four abortion providers to shut down, Walker will now require women undergo a medically unnecessary procedure before exercising their constitutional rights. What if a woman doesn't want the ultrasound? Too bad; her governor is imposing one on her anyway. What if her physician says there's no need for an ultrasound? It doesn't matter; Republican politicians in Wisconsin have decided to put themselves between patients and their doctors.

This, we're told, is the result of sensible policymaking from advocates of limited government.

But the way in which the Wisconsin governor signed this legislation into law adds insult to injury (in this case, almost literally). Scott Walker could have approved the measure in any number of ways, but he chose to do so privately, over the course of a holiday weekend, when the governor apparently thought it'd generate less attention.

There is, in other words, a degree of cowardice here -- if Walker thought he was doing the right thing, signing a measure with broad support into law, he wouldn't have been reduced to hiding.

The new state law takes effect today. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed suit in federal court. "The purpose and effect of the requirement, which is wholly unnecessary and unreasonable, is to impose a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortion prior to viability, in violation of their constitutional right to privacy," lawyers for the groups said in the complaint.

Marco Rubio To Introduce Abortion Bill In Senate: Report

By Mollie Reilly/Huffington Post

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will introduce a bill in the Senate banning abortions 20 weeks after conception, the Weekly Standard reported Tuesday.

According to the Weekly Standard report, Rubio will announce his sponsorship of the measure after Congress returns from the July 4 recess.

A similar measure was passed by the House last month in a 228 to 196 vote. However, the 20-week abortion ban is unlikely to gain traction in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The White House also threatened to veto the bill.

"Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose," the administration said in a statement. "This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution."

Another 20-week abortion bill is currently under consideration in Texas, where a filibuster by Democratic state Senator Wendy Davis thrust the issue into the limelight last week.

Rubio, a freshman Senator who is considered a likely contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, has previously been vocal about his pro-life stance.

"The people who are actually closed-minded in American politics are the people who love to preach about the certainty of science with regards to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception," Rubio said during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March, professing his belief in protecting life "at every stage of its development."

Earlier this year, the Senate rejected a budget amendment proposed by Rubio that would have imposed new penalties for abortions performed on minors outside of their home state.

"Under the Rubio amendment, a doctor and a grandmother would go to jail if the grandmother brought her grandchild across state lines, say, after she was raped," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said of the measure.

NC Senator Nesbitt busts GOP for sneak attack in war on women

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kansas Governor Approves Sweeping Anti-Abortion Law, Writes ‘JESUS + Mary’ In His Notes On The Bill

By Tara Culp-Ressler/Think Progress

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) has signed astringent anti-abortion bill that blocks tax breaks for abortion providers, requires doctors to tell women about the disputed link between abortion and breast cancer, anddefines life as beginning at conception in the state constitution. However, despite the fact that the omnibus legislation is 70 pages long, it does not necessarily explicitly state everything that the Republican governor wishes to convey on the abortion issue.

Before Brownback signed HB 2253 into law at a ceremony at the statehouse on Friday, an AP photo reveals that he made a few additions of his own in his notes on the bill. He typed out some phrases — “building a culture of life,” and “all human life is sacred” — that he ended up using in his speech to abortion opponents before approving the legislation, and he also scribbled “JESUS + Mary” at the top of the paper (second enlarged image via Gawker):

Of course, this is hardly the first time a politician has invoked religious belief to justify their opposition to legal abortion rights, regardless of the historical separation of church and state in the United States. That’s partly because the anti-choice community has worked hard to brand reproductive freedom as entirely antithetical to the Christian faith. Catholic lawmakers in particular are often hostile to abortion rights even when they are more moderate on other social issues.

But even though Brownback may invoke the Christian faith as he approves some of the harshest abortion restrictions in the nation, his position isn’t necessarily representative of the Christian coalition in the United States. Reproductive rights aren’t actually always in sharp opposition to religion. People of faith support women’s access to contraception, and most religious groupsdon’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, over 75 percent of white Protestants — along with 65 percent of black Protestants and 63 percent of white Catholics — support women’s constitutional right to legal abortion services.

Michigan, Virginia pass backdoor abortion restrictions

But Nolan Finley said I was the greatest
governor ever on the planet in history.

BY IRIN CARMON/Salon

On the Friday before the long  holiday weekend, the Republican governors of Michigan and Virginia snuck in a little New Year’s surprise for the women of their states, quietly signing abortion legislation that helped make 2012 the second most restrictive year for reproductive rights.

In Michigan, Rick Snyder signed a bill passed by the lame-duck Senate — the same one whose anti-union legislating dominated headlines in recent weeks — requiring clinics that perform more than 120 abortions a year to become surgical outpatient facilities, a level of licensing intended to be onerous and put clinics out of business. He also approved a bill that purports to screen for women being coerced into abortions.

Snyder did veto another bill limiting insurance coverage in private employee plans, which would have required purchase of a separate abortion rider. He objected to that on the grounds that rape victims would have to pay out of pocket if they didn’t buy the rider, and because, “As a practical matter, I believe this type of policy is an overreach of government into the private market.” Overreach of government into other realms, of course, is another matter entirely. (According to Michigan resident Emily Magner, one legislator interrupted her to cry, “THIS ISN’T ABOUT WOMEN! THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING FETUSES!”)

Virginia’s similar, hospital-level restrictions on clinics were somewhat overshadowed by the ultrasound requirements for women seeking abortions. Under threat of forever having the word “transvaginal” attached to his name, Gov. Bob McDonnell tried to split the difference on the ultrasound legislation, but in the final days of the year signed off on the clinic regulations. This followed months of conflict between the Board of Health and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli over whether existing clinics would be grandfathered into the legislation. The governor’s office called the regulations “common-sense”; NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia said in a statement,  “After two years of shocking backroom deals and bullying public health servants, Governor Bob McDonnell is clearly proving his disregard of Virginians’ opinions about women’s health care.”

Clinic regulations are the most insidious of abortion restrictions, because they’re harder for the layperson to understand and tend to incite less outrage as a result. And opposition to them tends to fall into antiabortion narratives about back-alley butchers resisting safety standards. But research has suggested that they also tend to be the most effective: It’s difficult to talk a woman out of having an abortion, but if you make access near impossible, you might take the choice off the table altogether.

According to Guttmacher’s year-end review, 2011 was the worst year for reproductive rights restrictions on the state level, with 2012 coming in second. Last year might have been worse, had it not been for the backlash, Guttmacher noted:  ”Against the backdrop of a contentious presidential campaign in which abortion and even contraception were front-burner issues — to a degree unprecedented in recent memory — supporters of reproductive health and rights were able to block high-profile attacks on access to abortion in states as diverse as Alabama, Idaho, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Virginia.” There’s no reason to believe this year will be much better:  According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 21 states will have the trifecta needed for antiabortion legislation to sail through: House, Senate and governor opposed to abortion rights and access. The question is, without the urgency of a national election, will anyone be paying attention?

Maddow rips Mississippi Republicans over abortion crack down

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

On her show Thursday night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow explained how Mississippi Republicans have nearly forced the only abortion clinic in the state to shut down.

Lawmakers in the state forced the abortion clinic to comply with regulations that were “impossible to comply with,” according to Maddow. The abortion clinic will be forced to shut down in January unless a judge blocks the law from taking effect.

“So this thing designed by Mississippi Republicans to be impossible turned out to be impossible,” she said. “They wanted to create a new regulation that the state’s one last abortion clinic could not follow, because they wanted to shut it down.”

The liberal MSNBC host noted that Republicans had publicly admitted the law was intended to make Mississippi an abortion-free state.

“January 11th is when American women in one American state will lose access to what is supposedly their constitutionally protected right, because Republicans in that state decided that for them,” Maddow concluded.

Watch video, courtesy of MSNBC, below:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How Anti-Choice Are The Possible GOP Vice Presidential Picks?

By Amanda Peterson Beadle/Think Progress


GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has campaigned as an anti-choicecandidate. He endorsed an amendment that would allow employers to deny contraception coverage and promised tosupport radical measures to define life as beginning at conception. He would likely carry these views with him into the White House, where the president “wields more power over reproductive rights than anyone else in the country,” said Donna Crane, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s policy director.

And when it comes to selecting his running mate, Romney will pick a vice presidential candidate who is just as anti-choice as he is. “The person that I would select in that position would share my views on those important issues,” Romney said at the 2011 Palmetto Freedom Forum.

So how anti-choice are the most likely picks to be Romney’s vice president? NARAL Pro-Choice America broke down where 13 potential nominees stood on reproductive rights, access to abortion services, and women’s health, and it is clear that each is just as anti-choice as Romney. Several have supported giving legal rights to a fetus at some point during a pregnancy, thus limiting a woman’s ability to access abortion services. For example, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), who is on the list, co-sponsored “personhood” legislation while serving in the South Carolina legislature.

Here are some of the anti-choice actions highlighted in NARAL’s report by the politicians frequently mentioned as top vice president picks:

TIM PAWLENTY: The former Minnesota governor signed a mandatory 24-hour delay for women seeking abortion care into law, and while serving in the state House, he wrote a bill to require women to be told medically inaccurate information about abortion services. But Pawlenty also approved a bill ensuring that women who have been sexually assaulted have access to emergency contraception — a measure similar to one Romney vetoed.

ROB PORTMAN: While serving in the House of Representatives and Senate, the current Ohio senator has voted on 115 bills related to abortion and reproductive rights — 114 of which were anti-choice. He repeatedly voted for the Federal Abortion Ban, which criminalizes some abortion services, and Portman co-sponsored a bill to effectively ban abortion coverage in state health insurance exchanges.

KELLY AYOTTE: The first-term New Hampshire senator has never cast a pro-choice vote. In 2003, Ayotte argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court defending New Hampshire’s law requiring a girl who is a minor to notify a parent before she has an abortion.

MARCO RUBIO: The Florida senator has sponsored two bills that would gut the expansion of contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act. He also voted to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding, which would have denied health care and preventive services to millions of women.

BOBBY JINDAL: While serving in the House of Representatives, Jindal voted eight times to limit abortion access and other reproductive rights issues. And just last month, the current Louisiana governor signed three anti-choice bills into law.

JOHN THUNE: The senator from South Dakota co-sponsored a bill to allow hospitals to deny emergency abortion care, even when a woman’s life is in danger. And while serving in Congress, Thune has voted repeatedly to deny military women the right to use their own, private money for abortion care in military hospitals.

While there used to be a larger number of pro-choice GOP politicians, now “the pool is very small” as the party has grown more conservative, said NARAL’s Crane. And that leaves Romney with a slate of possible vice presidents who are “all equally threatening to a woman’s right to choose,” explained NARAL deputy policy director Lissy Moskowitz.

Judge continues to block Mississippi anti-abortion law

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on Wednesday continued to block a law that would shutter the state’s only abortion clinic.

“Today’s decision means a woman in Mississippi will continue to be able to make her own personal health care decisions in consultation with her family, her faith and her physician – at least for the time being,” Kay Scott, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, said. “Women’s health is of paramount importance to Planned Parenthood. While this case continues, there are health care challenges in Mississippi that Planned Parenthood is working to address every day. Mississippi has some of the worst health outcomes for women, including some of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies, maternal and infant mortality, and sexually transmitted infections including HIV.”

District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III issued a restraining order shortly after the law went into effect on July 1, effectively saving the Jackson Women’s Health Organization from being shut down. After a hearing on Wednesday, Jordan continued to block the law from being implemented.

The new law, passed by the state’s Republicans with the support of Gov. Phil Bryant (R), requires doctors who perform abortions to become registered in obstetrics and gynecology and secure permission to admit patients to a local hospital.

However, it is extremely rare for women to experience severe medical complications during abortions. In addition, not a single one of the physicians at the Jackson Women’s Health Organization have been granted permission to hospitalize patients.

Republicans have boasted that the law would eliminate legal abortion in the state — a boast that has come back to bite them.

Despite pleas from state attorneys to ignore public officials’ statements, Jordan said there was evidence the law was intended to eliminate access to abortion, which is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“In this case, Plaintiffs have offered evidence — including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers — that the Act’s purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi,” Jordan wrote in his restraining order. “They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted.”

Michigan GOP Congressman Announces New D.C. Anti-Abortion Restrictions On Facebook

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

A Michigan congressman used his Facebook page last week to announce that he is planning to introduce legislation that would further limit access to abortions for women in Washington, DC.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) posted that his bill would “requir[e] minors in D.C. to receive their parents’ consent before having an abortion, prohibits non-doctors from performing abortions, and provides conscience protections for individuals and health care facilities in D.C. that refuse to perform abortions.”

House Republicans have long sought to ban abortion in the District. The House Republican budget for DC prevents “the city from using its own taxpayer money to pay for abortions for low-income women” and Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) recently introduced legislation that wouldban abortions 20 weeks after gestation.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) condemned the latest Republican restrictions:

On Tuesday evening, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) decried Amash’s plans and ongoing efforts by the GOP to restrict abortions solely in the District.

“Rep. Amash is spending time in the House meddling in my district, instead of attending to the needs of his own constituents,” she wrote in a statement. “His bill would overturn our local laws with no accountability to our residents.”

Amash’s bill could have a particularly debilitating effect on women who have been raped or are victims of incest, while more expansive conscience clauses significantly limit access to abortion procedures.

Arizona Lawmaker: Women Should ‘Watch An Abortion Being Performed’ Prior To Having It

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress



The Arizona legislature is considering at least two separate bills that would significantly limit women’s access to abortion by banning the procedure after 20 weeks of gestation and strip funding to Planned Parenthood. But those restrictions don’t go far enough for conservative lawmaker Rep. Terri Proud (R) who told a constituent in an email that women should be required to “watch an abortion being performed” prior to having it:

“Personally I’d like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a ‘surgical procedure’. If it’s not a life it shouldn’t matter, if it doesn’t harm a woman then she shouldn’t care, and don’t we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.

Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain – I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living – I will be voting YES.”

Proud made headlines earlier this year when she sponsored a bill requiring the Bible to be taught as an elective in high school, but not the Quran. “The Quran hasn’t influenced Western culture the way the Bible has,” she said, noting students already learn about some ancient religions, including Greek and Roman gods, in their coursework. “We’ve put so much fear around any discussion of the Bible that I think it’s really causing our kids to miss out.” The measure passed the House and is now in the Senate.

Proud is now co-sponsoring a measure that would allow employers to opt ou of covering birth control in their health insurance plans.

Motor City Liberal Comment: I wonder do the state party kick in a few extra bucks to the female reps that pushed these wacky ideas?

In Michigan, A Long List of Bills Attacking Reproductive Freedom

by Angi Becker Stevens/RH Reality Check

Several conservative states—such as Oklahoma and Texas—have repeatedly drawn attention for the proliferation of anti-choice laws proposed and passed by their legislatures in the past year. But as the GOP’s war on women continues to grow nationwide, legislatures even in states not traditionally considered to be extremely conservative are taking steps to severely restrict reproductive freedom.

Michigan has already received a failing grade on its choice-related laws from NARAL, and yet the current dismal state of access to abortion in Michigan is nothing compared to what could soon become in reality. This legislative season, the legislature has already passed a redundant ban on non-existent (and already federally "banned") “partial birth abortions." But over a dozen more pieces of proposed extreme anti-choice legislation are currently at various stages of being passed into law. From personhood to ultrasounds, fetal pain bills to provider regulations, the proposed legislation in Michigan seems to represent every variety of anti-choice tactic we’ve witnessed in state legislatures across the country in recent months. 

A comprehensive picture of the threat to reproductive rights in Michigan yields an unfortunately lengthy list of currently-proposed laws and regulations and a striking view of how very dire is the situation for reproductive health and rights in the state.

Fetal Personhood: We’ve seen the push for “personhood”-–the conferring of the full rights of a living human being on a fertilized egg--—in several states recently, often in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment. The personhood bill in Michigan would alter all state legal code to include “fetus” as part of the definition of “an individual.” Personhood laws have serious implications for the legality of abortion, since altering the definition of “an individual” to include “a fetus” would render all abortions after the 11th week of pregnancy (when the fetal stage begins) potentially prosecutable as murder . This bill has been referred to the committee on judiciary, but has not gone further since its introduction early last year.

Stricter regulations for the disposal of fetal remains: This bill falls into a category of anti-choice legislation that appears fairly innocuous, but is frequently used to impose excessively burdensome regulations on abortion providers, increasing the chances that clinics will be fined or shut down completely. Sometimes known by the acronym “TRAP” (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), such regulations have become a common anti-choice tactic. This bill would mandate that all fetal remains be disposed of according to the same regulations governing the disposal of dead bodies: they must be buried, cremated, or interred. There is also concern that the bill could have implications for women experiencing miscarriages, as it does not specify that only medical staff would be responsible for the proper disposal of fetal remains. This bill has successfully passed through the senate with recommendation for immediate effect; the accompanying sentencing guidelines have been referred to the committee on judiciary.

Strengthening of parental notification laws: Michigan already counts itself among the states where abortion is illegal for minors without parental consent, unless a young woman successfully petitions the court to grant a waiver of the consent requirement. The bill currently up for consideration in the state senate would remove the right of young women to seek a waiver through a different division of family court in cases where one division has previously denied granting a waiver, thereby further restricting the one course of action available to young women in a desperate situation. This bill has passed favorably out of committee without amendment, and has been recommended for immediate effect. It awaits a decision from the senate committee of the whole.

Ultrasound requirement: Michigan’s proposed ultrasound bill would require all abortion-seeking women to undergo an ultrasound a minimum of two hours prior to beginning an abortion procedure. The law, if passed, would mandate that a woman receive an ultrasound on the most technologically-advanced equipment available, in order to give the clearest image. In very early pregnancy, this would likely mean a trans-vaginal ultrasound. In later stages, it could often mean the far more detailed 3D ultrasounds that have become more widely available in recent years. Though the bill claims that a woman must be given the option to view the image, it also requires that the monitor be turned in her direction, so that the only way to exercise her “option” to not view the image is to turn her head or close her eyes. This bill has not progressed since its introduction in March of last year. 

Regulations on the prescription of medical abortion: This bill would prohibit the prescription of medical abortion without a physical examination. Particularly for women in rural areas—of which there are plenty in the state of Michigan—this regulation could severely affect the ability to obtain an abortion. There is no medical indication for banning the practice of tele-medicine for abortion; on the contrary,research has found telemedicine for the prescription of medical abortion to be safe and effective. This bill was introduced in June, and has been referred to the committee on health policy.

Requirement for abortions post-19 weeks to take place in facilities with neonatal units: This bill aims to further the reach of Michigan’s “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” (passed into law in 2002) by requiring all abortions post-19 weeks  to take be carried out in facilities with neonatal units in order to potentially save the life of an infant born after an abortion procedure. This regulation would greatly limit the availability of late abortion—which virtually always occurs for reasons of serious medical necessity. Often, women seeking abortion at this stage in pregnancy are doing so after the discovery of severe birth defects; for women in this difficult situation, limiting the availability of late-term abortion only serves to make an already painful experience even more challenging. This bill was introduced in June, and has not yet progressed.

Insurance restrictions: Several bills have been introduced for the purpose of prohibiting state-provided health insurance from covering abortion procedures, thereby denying any possible abortion coverage for state public employees. The bills state that abortion coverage may be provided if purchased separately as an additional rider. Beyond the obvious problem of passing that out-of-pocket expense on to (often underpaid) woman workers, the reality is that no such “abortion riders” even currently exist. This package of bills passed favorably out of the committee on health policy in December, and has been recommended for immediate effect.

Liability insurance for abortion providers: This bill would strengthen the requirements for liability insurance for abortion providers, making it more difficult and costly for physicians to continue providing abortions to their patients. This bill was introduced in December and has been referred to the committee on insurance.

Prohibition of coercive abortion: This bill would make it a crime to coerce a woman to have an abortion against her will, and could target—among others—any spouse, partner (or parent of a minor) who encouraged a woman to seek an abortion (though it is perfectly legal to coerce a woman not to have an abortion). In the time since I last wrote about the anti-coercion bill, additional accompanying bills have been introduced. One creates a requirement for the state to produce and distribute literature explaining coercion to all abortion-seeking women. Another would require all women to go through an “oral-screening” before obtaining an abortion in order to identify the presence of possible coercion. If it was determined that there was reason to suspect coercion, the woman would be forced to go through an additional 24-hour waiting period prior to obtaining an abortion. Much like the claims that ultrasound regulations are about protecting “informed consent,” the anti-coercion bill is hypocritically touted as attempting to “protect” women. This notion of “protection” is rendered even more patronizing by the further screening requirement that would deny a woman the right to even decide for herself whether she had been coerced. Before the recent House vote on this package of bills, some legislators highlighted the hypocrisy by proposing amendments that would also make it illegal to coerce a woman into continuing a pregnancy. The amendments were rejected; the bills passed easily in the House on Tuesday by a vote of 72-37.

Removal of state funding for abortion-providing facilities: In a move reminiscent of last-year’s threatened federal de-funding of Planned Parenthood, this recently introduced bill would deny all state funds and contracts to any facility or organization that provides abortion. It is difficult to imagine that many large-scale medical facilities could afford to sacrifice their eligibility for any and all state money. Smaller women’s health clinics that are determined to continue providing abortion services would be dramatically affected by the loss of all state grant eligibility, and it is not at all unreasonable to fear that many would be forced to close. This bill alone has the potential to greatly decrease the availability of safe and legal abortion in the state of Michigan. This bill was introduced in January, and has not yet progressed through the system.

“Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:” Similar to other “fetal pain bills” which have been proposed and passed recently in other states, this bill would outlaw all abortion after 20 weeks. The only exception in the bill is for cases in which death—but not severe non-fatal health consequences—would likely result if the pregnancy were to continue. The bill even goes so far as to callously specify that a woman’s threatened suicide does not qualify as a risk to her life, and leaves no room even for mental health professionals to make a call as to whether a pregnant woman is in fact in danger of suicide. This bill was only recently introduced, and has not yet moved forward.

As problematic as any one of these bills is on its own, it is even more frightening to consider the many intersections between them. For example, imagine that both the laws denying state funding to abortion providers and the requirement that all abortions after 19 weeks occur in facilities with neonatal units were enacted. All medical facilities large enough to maintain neonatal units would likely be too dependent on state funding to continue providing abortions, and so any abortions required after 19 weeks would become extremely difficult to obtain, forcing women to leave the state (and incur additional travel expenses) or resort to attempts at self-inducing abortion. If the ban on post-20-week abortions becomes law at the same time as other restrictions—such as the ban on long-distance prescription of medical abortion—an increasing number of women are likely to find themselves unable to jump through the necessary hoops to obtain an abortion before it’s too late. Or, consider the clear hypocrisy of a state passing a law to “protect” a woman from coercion while simultaneously passing a law forcing her to undergo invasive ultrasound procedures in an attempt to dissuade her from going through with an abortion.

To make matters even grimmer, Michigan’s governor and legislature are strongly anti-choice; so the unfortunate reality is that any and all of these bills have a strong chance of passing. If there is any hope of saving some semblance of reproductive freedom in Michigan, it is urgent for the people of the state to send a strong and clear message to the politicians that this kind of anti-woman legislation will simply not be tolerated.

The full text of these—and other—bills can be viewed at http://www.legislature.mi.gov

New PAC seeks to oust anti-choice legislators in Virginia

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Former Virginia lawmakers announced on Monday the formation of the Women’s Strike Force, a new political action committee aimed at defeating state lawmakers who have pushed for legislation to prohibit or restriction a woman’s ability to terminate her pregnancy.

“The steps that have been taken by lawmakers in Virginia and states across the country to deprive women of their reproductive rights are a slap in the face to every American wife, mother, sister and daughter in our country,” former Del. Robin Abbott (D), the group’s co-chair, said.

So-called “informed consent” legislation in Virginia sparked outrage because it would have required a woman to receive a trans-vaginal ultrasound before having an abortion. Since most abortions are performed in the first trimester, when the fetus is too small to be viewed by an abdominal sonogram, the ultrasound image would need to be captured by inserting a probe into the vagina.

The bill would also require the ultrasound image to remain in a woman’s medical file for seven years.

After a public backlash, the legislation wasrevised so that it would require only non-intrusive abdominal ultrasounds.

“As a former member of the General Assembly and Virginia’s first woman in Congress, I fought for women’s rights in the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s,” former Del. Leslie Byrne (D) said in a statement.

“We must move the Commonwealth and the nation forward, not backslide to denying women rights.”

Another bill in Virginia would have legally defined a person to include unborn children “from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.” The legislation was intended to ban abortion and to set up a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, which upheld a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy until the fetus is viable outside the womb.

The bill could of had the unintended consequence of outlawing contraception, but an amendment to prevent such an occurrence was rejected by a 64 to 34 vote in the House. The bill was latershelved by the Virginia Senate, and will not be considered again until 2013.

Dem proposes vasectomy limitations in wake of anti-abortion legislation

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

A Georgia Democrat has devised a clever response to her Republican colleagues’ recent zest for imposing big government regulations on female reproductive rights: regulate vasectomies as well.

The proposed law, put forward by Rep. Yasmin Neal (D), would ban the practice of male sterilization except in cases where a man faces serious health risks without one. It was crafted as a response to a so-called “fetal pain bill” proposed by Republicans, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks.

A measure similar to what Georgia Republicans are considering was recently defeated in Virginia following the heart-wrenching testimony of one woman who told lawmakers that she had an abortion after 20 weeks because doctors said her unborn child would suffer tremendously due to health defects.

So-called “fetal pain” bills have swept conservative-leaning states in recent years, with more than 16 legislatures considering tighter regulations on women’s health matters.

“Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies,” Rep. Neal explained in a video published online. “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”

Neal also said she would stage a public hearing on the matter Wednesday afternoon at 3 p.m.

Activists and conservative lawmakers insist that 20 weeks is when an unborn fetus can feel pain, although scientists and doctors disagree with that conclusion. 

The Centers for Disease Control notes that abortions after 21 weeks are already very rare: a report in 2003 found that just 1.4 percent of abortions happen past 21 weeks.

This video was published to YouTube by Georgia Rep. Yasmin Neal (D) on Feb. 21, 2012.

(H/T: Think Progress)