• Cover Story: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Supreme Court
• Winning in the High Court
• Achieving Justice Through International Mechanisms
• Promoting Women's Rights Worldwide
• Monitoring Human Rights Abuses
• Advocating for Low-Income Women
• Speaking Out for the Disenfranchised
• Standing Up for Adolescents' Reproductive Rights
• Opposing Female Genital Mutilation
• Challenging Parental Involvement Laws
• Avoiding the Pitfalls of TRAP
• Increasing Access to Contraceptives
• Bringing Down the Plates
• Ungagging the Gag Rule
• Hailing Medical Abortion

What good is a right if obstacles prevent you from exercising it? Last year and still today, a woman in the United States can only exercise her right to choose if (1) she can afford it; (2) she can locate a clinic within traveling distance (86% of counties in the United States do not have an abortion provider); (3) she has passed a mandatory waiting period (currently enforced in 13 states); (4) she has read biased, state-mandated literature aimed at scaring her into carrying her pregnancy to term (enforced in 13 states); (5) she has the determination to face the gauntlet of anti-abortion protestors awaiting her arrival at the clinic; (6) her providers have survived the harassment and violence perpetrated against them; and (7) she is not a teenager (teenagers in 32 states must negotiate the additional impediment of getting their parents' permission or a judge's okay before obtaining an abortion).

Hundreds of other anti-choice, anti-reproductive rights bills were presented in legislatures across the United States last year, just as they have been in every recent year. For instance, after the abortifacient mifepristone finally received FDA approval in late September (after ten years of wrangling), anti-abortion legislators began introducing bills to restrict its availability. And just as Nebraska's illusory "partial-birth abortion" ban was being stamped unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, some lawmakers threatened to retool similar statutes with the hope they would pass constitutional muster in the future.

But this problem isn't only in America. Ask Paulina, a 14-year-old Mexican girl who became a mother this year as the result of rape. Despite her strong desire and her legal right in Mexico to terminate the pregnancy, she found the obstacles placed in her path by the Mexican government, the Catholic Church and individuals within the medical system too great to overcome.

All the world over, women are routinely denied autonomy over their bodies, whether it comes in the form of obstacles, outright abortion bans, or a slow, steady erosion of constitutionally protected rights, as has happened in the United States. And that's why, in 2000, the Center for Reproductive Rights remained committed to defending and promoting women's reproductive health and rights in the United States and abroad - in particular, focusing its energy on the most vulnerable: the young and the impoverished.

The Center for Reproductive Rights' passion for reproductive rights is shared by political cartoonists who inspire, amuse and inform us in a way no words can. So this issue of the RFN is devoted to sharing with our readers some of our favorite cartoons as we glance back at the past year, re-examining the reproductive rights issues that concerned us most.
Winning in the High Court

In a major victory for the Center for Reproductive Rights, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on June 28, 2000 that Nebraska's so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to protect the woman's health, and it placed an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. While proponents of the ban had hoped to convince the Court that the statute only banned one particular abortion procedure, the 5-4 majority agreed with Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Simon Heller that the statute was written so broadly it would ban the most commonly-used method for performing pre-viability abortions. In addition, several justices referred in their decisions to the opinions of health experts (including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) who asserted in their amicus briefs that doctors must be free to choose the safest medical care for their patients.

The High Court's decision had a domino effect (PDF), resulting in similar abortion bans being struck down across the nation. As the leading litigant in this crusade to protect Roe, the Center for Reproductive Rights celebrated 11 victories against bans on abortion in 2000.

Achieving Justice Through International Mechanisms

When a Peruvian woman, Marina Machaca, was denied justice in her own country after being raped by an examining physician in a public hospital, the Center for Reproductive Rights and its partner organizations stepped in and convinced the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to review the case. It was the first time the Commission had ever taken on a reproductive rights case. As a result, a settlement was reached that included the Peruvian government's agreement to make reparations to the victim and to study ways to improve the treatment of sexual abuse victims within the judicial and public health systems.

Another Step Towards International Justice

In October 2000, following on the heels of the Machaca case, the IACHR announced that it will review another case submitted by the Center for Reproductive Rights and its partners involving the death of a Peruvian woman who was coerced by health officials into undergoing a sterilization procedure and then denied follow-up care that might have saved her life.

Promoting Women's Rights Worldwide

Representatives from 180 nations gathered at the United Nations in June to conduct a five-year review of the historic women's rights treaty - the Beijing Platform for Action - that confirmed the centrality of reproductive rights in advancing the status of women worldwide. Hopes were high that further gains could be implemented. The Center for Reproductive Rights hosted numerous events and joined forces with hundreds of other non-governmental organizations from around the world pushing for greater adolescent access to reproductive health services and for women to have wider access to safe abortions, among other reproductive rights concerns. Launched during the conference was the Center for Reproductive Rights' special global report, Reproductive Rights 2000: Moving Forward, which examines how countries have succeeded or failed in their commitments to the agreement.

As the conference drew to a close, forced marriages and "honor killings" were addressed for the first time. As well, stronger measures were taken to combat marital rape and sex trafficking. Unfortunately, the full potential of the final outcomes document was stymied by the Vatican and a small collection of conservative nations that opposed many progressive initiatives.

Monitoring Human Rights Abuses

Another way that the Center for Reproductive Rights works to advance women's equality and rights is by providing credible and reliable independent information (called "shadow reports") to international human rights treaty monitoring bodies regarding the efforts being made, or not being made, by governments to comply with the reproductive rights-related provisions in human rights treaties. In 2000, the Center for Reproductive Rights' shadow reports covered Lithuania, Romania, Argentina and Peru.

The Center for Reproductive Rights added two new editions to its series entitled Women of the World: Laws and Policies Affecting Their Reproductive Lives. The new publications cover East Central Europe and Francophone Africa.

Advocating for Low-Income Women

Although women in the United States have the right to an abortion, the reality is that many cannot afford the cost involved in exercising that right. Even in cases of medically necessary abortions, when a woman's health is at stake if she carries a pregnancy to term, a woman without the funds to pay for the procedure may find Medicaid unwilling to pick up the tab. The Center for Reproductive Rights has been fighting many Medicaid restrictions on funding for abortions at the state level, arguing that these restrictions violate, among other things, a woman's right to privacy and equal protection under state constitutions. Consequently, the Center for Reproductive Rights celebrated three major victories this year when Medicaid bans challenged in Arizona, Indiana and Texas were held unconstitutional. The result is that over two million women in those states, who are Medicaid-eligible and of childbearing age, can now be covered for medically necessary abortions.

Speaking Out for the Disenfranchised

In October 2000, The Center for Reproductive Rights argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that tests the rights of all Americans to keep their medical information confidential. In what the Center for Reproductive Rights contends was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, a targeted group of predominately low-income, African-American women went to a South Carolina hospital to receive confidential prenatal care. They were searched for evidence of drug use without a warrant or their consent when their urine was tested for cocaine by their doctors on behalf of the police. Nine of the women were arrested, some directly out of their hospital beds, still bleeding and in pain from childbirth. One was shackled to a hospital bed for two days while she underwent labor and delivery. The American Medical Association and 74 other organizations and individual medical experts submitted amicus briefs decrying this breach of doctor/patient confidentiality.

Standing Up for Adolescents' Reproductive Rights

Adolescents have reproductive rights just as adults do. They have the right to control their own bodies and they are entitled to have their reproductive health needs met. However, beginning in puberty and sometimes earlier, young girls may be forced into marriage, become victims of rape or incest, or undergo female genital mutilation. At some point during adolescence, many decide to become sexually active but lack access to information and services to prevent sexually transmissible diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

Opposing Female Genital Mutilation

In 2000, the Center for Reproductive Rights launched its highly-acclaimed book, Female Genital Mutilation: A Guide to Laws and Policies Worldwide, which examines the harmful traditional practice of cutting the genitalia of girls, usually between the ages of four and twelve. While the custom is often considered a rite of passage to womanhood, more and more communities and governments recognize it as a violation of children's human rights.

Challenging Parental Involvement Laws

Thirty-two states enforce parental involvement laws that allow a parent to overrule a daughter's desire to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Even young women who are victims of incest or face the threat of domestic violence may have to appeal to their parent(s) for permission for an abortion or, what is often equally traumatic, appear before a court of law for a waiver. In 2000, Center for Reproductive Rights litigation efforts resulted in parental involvement laws being struck down in both Alaska and Florida.

Avoiding the Pitfalls of TRAP
(Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers)

Anti-choice legislators in the United States have figured out that another way to make abortions difficult to obtain is by making them prohibitively expensive, and one way to accomplish this is by imposing costly and unnecessary regulations on those that provide the services - the doctors. In November, the Center for Reproductive Rights petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review our challenge to South Carolina's TRAP regulations. Center for Reproductive Rights attorneys argue that the regulations harm women's health and violate the rights to privacy and equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution by imposing burdensome, unnecessary requirements more stringent than regulations governing comparable medical care.

Center for Reproductive Rights Shut Down Other TRAPS in 2000:
Arizona - Blocked pending trial.
Louisiana - Struck down.

Increasing Access to Contraceptives

In recent years, the Center for Reproductive Rights and other pro-choice groups were instrumental in prompting the FDA to find certain brands of oral contraceptives safe and effective for use as emergency contraceptive pills (PDF) (ECPs). However, there is still much work to be done before ECPs are widely accessible to all women. In an effort to develop strategies for expanding access to these contraceptives, the Center for Reproductive Rights sponsored a series of statewide road shows in 2000 that were attended by activists, educators and those involved in the dissemination of ECPs, such as emergency room health workers.

Bringing Down the Plates

Louisiana anti-choice lawmakers thought they could pull another fast one and have the state distribute "Choose Life" license plates at the expense of the First Amendment. The Center for Reproductive Rights argued that the state failed to provide a "viewpoint-neutral" forum for speech on abortion, as the plate only expressed one viewpoint on this polemic issue. A federal judge agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction in August to stop production of the plates.

Ungagging the Gag Rule

In 2000, the "global gag rule," imposed by the U.S. Congress on foreign recipients of federal funding, forced approximately 430 organizations in more than fifty nations to "agree" not to use their own non-U.S. funds to speak about abortion law reform or perform legal abortions except in cases of rape, incest or if the woman's life is endangered - activities that are constitutionally protected in the United States.

One week after the Center for Reproductive Rights and other pro-choice activists protested the "global gag rule" at the World March of Women 2000 in Washington, D.C., Congress passed the FY 2001 foreign operations appropriations bill without gag restrictions. However it remains to be seen if the restrictions will be re-imposed through executive order by President-elect George W. Bush.

In its 2000 report, An Unfulfilled Human Right: Family Planning in Guatemala, the Center for Reproductive Rights condemned the Guatemalan government for failing to ensure the right to access contraceptive services and information, among other rights violations.

Hailing Medical Abortion

It was one of the biggest pro-choice success stories of the year. After ten years of ducking and hedging, the FDA agreed in September, 2000 to allow the distribution of mifepristone (RU-486) in the United States. This drug can be used to terminate a pregnancy in the first seven weeks. Months prior to the FDA announcement, the Center for Reproductive Rights issued a heads-up analysis on real and potential legal obstacles to medical abortion. And sure enough, anti-choice legislators are busy enacting laws to further stymie its use in 2001.

| |