The "global gag rule" not only strangles the free speech rights of foreign organizations, it seals the lips of Americans as well.

When U.S. Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY) stepped into the congressional ring last year to protest the global gag rule, she made an impassioned speech for democracy: "The gag rule says to our NGO partners abroad that we do not need to care about their rights," said Lowey during a House debate, "that freedom of speech, the very foundation of the American democracy, matters here, but it does not matter abroad; that our commitment to free speech and freedom of association, fixtures of our Constitution, end at our borders."

What Lowey failed to mention is that the gag rule also steps on the free speech rights of Americans. That is something the Center for Reproductive Rights is learning the hard way. As advocates for the legal protection of reproductive rights worldwide, including abortion, we are discovering that when our foreign partner organizations cannot talk about the "a" word, neither, in many associative instances, can we.

Last year, approximately 430 foreign organizations in over 50 countries "agreed" to stop performing abortions or speaking about abortion law reform in order to qualify for family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Under the USAID guidelines, these groups cannot even use private funds to advocate for or perform legal abortions.

While some have called the decisions of these foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to accept U.S. funds as "voluntary," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written that she "would not so characterize the hard decision confronting NGOs operating in communities of poverty so dire and conditions for women so low that we cannot comprehend their situation."

Not only that, over 80,000 women around the world die from unsafe, illegal abortions every year. Hundreds of thousands more suffer injuries or complications from unsafe abortions.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is one of many U.S.-based organizations that work arm-in-arm with foreign NGO's to help save women's lives and promote basic human rights - such as ensuring a woman's right to a full range of safe and legal family planning options. But under the global gag rule, we can't fulfill that public service mission.

For instance, when groups are discouraged from working with us for fear that it may impact their future USAID funding, it makes it difficult for us to conduct the necessary research to assess the impact that abortion laws have on women's health. We also cannot effectively contribute to the abortion debate in a country where many crucial "partner" organizations are prohibited from engaging in public debate on this topic. As well, the gag rule creates a "chilling" climate around abortion. It appears to uphold or sanction the existing taboos surrounding abortion and its impact on women's health and autonomy.

Paradoxically, the United States government, in its Medicaid program, requires every state to fund abortions for eligible women under the life, rape and incest exceptions to the Hyde Amendment. Similarly, the United States Foreign Assistance Act is interpreted to permit the U.S. government to fund abortions for women overseas who fall under the life, rape and incest exceptions.

Family planning organizations had hoped that last year's global gag rule would be a one-shot deal, as brokered by ultra-conservatives in the U.S. Congress while negotiating the fiscal year 2000 foreign operations bill. But those hopes are fading. While the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations appropriations bill passed in October without gag rule language, it is likely that President-elect Bush will reinstate the gag rule through executive order. Judging by his cabinet selections, which include several anti-choice candidates, many pundits are predicting that reinstating the gag rule could be one of Bush's first acts in office.

- Ann Farmer

Global Gag Rule Timeline

1984: The Mexico City policy, introduced by the Reagan Administration, prohibits any organization from receiving U.S. population assistance funds if, with their own funds and in accordance with the laws of their countries, they "perform" or "actively promote abortion as a method of family planning."

1993: Clinton abolishes the Mexico City policy by executive order.

1999: Republican Congress re-enacts the gag rule policy through a one-year appropriations act.

2000: Congress and President Clinton agree to abolish the global gag rule.

The Center for Reproductive Rights works with women's legal and health organizations in numerous gagged countries including Albania, Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Here are three examples of the effect of the global gag rule on our work:

1. In Bolivia, where maternal mortality from illegal abortions is very high, we have provided Spanish language, legal advocacy materials to approximately 15 Bolivian women's reproductive rights and health NGOs that were trying to reform Bolivia's restrictive abortion law. But last year, as a direct result of the U.S. gag rule, four of those organizations dropped out of this public campaign to save women's lives.

2. We organized a workshop in El Salvador last November where we launched our report on the effects of the new criminal abortion law passed there in 1998. With leading women's rights advocates, we discussed ways to reform the law to ensure that women whose lives are threatened by pregnancy can have an abortion. We are concerned that some critical organizations (that would otherwise want to) won't get involved with this reform effort for fear of jeopardizing future USAID funding, even though the Center for Reproductive Rights' efforts are supported with funds from private U.S. philanthropies.

3. During 2000, we worked with Russian NGOs on informing the Russian government and general public about the health effects of a proposed restrictive abortion law in Russia. We are concerned that some of the Russian NGOs critical to the success of this effort may feel compelled to bow out of future such efforts to avoid any negative impact on their USAID funding.

Defending the Rights of Young Women

"Teenagers should have the same constitutional right to safe and legal abortion services as adults, yet they more often bear the brunt of restrictions on the right to choose, and their outcry is less likely to be heard."

- Attorney Jody Ratner was awarded a fellowship by the National Association for Public Interest Law to spearhead a special, two-year Center for Reproductive Rights project to mitigate the impact of forced parental involvement laws on young women's access to abortion services.

Teens in a Squeeze They Face Harsher Abortion Restrictions Than Adults

Parental involvement laws require that one or both parents be notified or give consent before a pregnant minor can obtain an abortion. On its face, having parents involved in the health care decisions of their children and promoting communication between parents and teenagers sounds like a good idea. In reality, these laws often prove harmful to young women.

Research shows that the majority of teens voluntarily involve at least one parent when they are pregnant. The ones that don't often have a good reason not to - they may be victims of incest or face a genuine threat of domestic violence, for instance. Or they may fear being told to leave home, or being coerced into an early, unwanted marriage. Requiring a teen to ask her parents for permission to get an abortion is unlikely to generate family communication where none or little exists.

Proponents of these restrictions point to alternative provisions for those teens who are unable to involve their parents in their decision making. For example, most of the 42 states that have adopted parental involvement laws have included a judicial bypass mechanism that allows a teen to ask a judge for permission to get an abortion without having to tell her parents. She must demonstrate to the judge that she is mature enough to make her own decision, or the judge can decide that, regardless of her maturity, an abortion is in her best interests.

However, says Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Jody Ratner, "this bypass alternative is difficult and intimidating for many young women, some of whom cannot negotiate the burdensome process."

Ratner recently joined the Center for Reproductive Rights as a fellowship attorney awarded by the National Association for Public Interest Law, to spearhead a Center for Reproductive Rights project focused on mitigating the impact of forced parental involvement on young women's access to abortion services. During the next two years, Ratner will challenge the validity of existing parental involvement statutes and work to prevent the imposition of new requirements. Another goal is to improve the operation of existing judicial bypass procedures.

Having to go before a judge in a court hearing to discuss such an intimate matter would be traumatic for most anyone. For many teens, the thought of it arouses sheer terror. "After all," says Ratner, "this is one of her most important life decisions and a complete stranger is being handed the reins to make it."

While some judges do make thoughtful decisions, others have been known to chastise or belittle young women for engaging in sexual relations, telling them to "keep their legs crossed," for instance. Some anti-choice judges have interjected their personal beliefs into the hearing - asking the young woman if she knows she is taking the life of an "unborn child" or suggesting that she consult with a member of the clergy. Some anti-choice judges simply deny all requests that come their way.

Even before she makes an appearance before the judge, a teen faces many obstacles. In order to successfully navigate the court system, she needs to get the assistance of an attorney. Where attorneys are available to handle these matters on a pro bono basis, the young woman must figure out how, when and where to meet the attorney without raising the suspicion of her parents. Reaching an attorney on the telephone may be difficult because teens do not want to phone from home and may not be able to provide a phone number for a return call.

Getting to the courthouse is another problem for many teens. Most courthouse operating hours coincide with school hours, so making an appearance may necessitate that a teen skip school or seek permission from a school counselor or principal. Some school districts make it a practice to inform parents of any absence. Once at the courthouse, a teen risks running into a neighbor or a family friend who might report back to her parents.

All this takes time. Delays of at least a few and sometimes several weeks can be engendered by the bypass system. For a teen - especially one who has avoided making a decision or simply not realized that her missed period was an indication of pregnancy - it all adds up. And while abortion is an extremely safe procedure, the medical risks and expenses increase with time.

Because of these factors, many teens will go to great lengths to avoid seeking a judicial bypass. Some teens will hitchhike to another state where they do not need parental involvement for an abortion, thus risking their health. Or they may choose more covert means to terminate a pregnancy, such as resorting to an unsafe, illegal abortion or self-inducing one.

On the other hand, there is considerable federal and state policy and law that supports minors' right and ability to determine their health care. Most lawmakers have resisted creating similar parental involvement laws affecting areas of minors' reproductive health care other than abortion. For instance, 27 states and the District of Columbia have laws and policies that specifically authorize a pregnant minor to obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification. And the health risks involved in childbirth are considerably greater than those for terminating a pregnancy.

Minors face more restrictions on their right to choose abortion than any other group of women. State legislators have been swayed by arguments made by anti-abortion activists that minors need to be protected from themselves and from abortion providers. In addition, state and federal courts have limited our ability to help minors by lowering the standard by which they review a state's asserted interest. Even the United States Congress may reconsider this year a bill making it a federal criminal offense for any person, other than a parent, to accompany a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion if she has not met the parental involvement requirements in her home state.

-Ann Farmer

For further information on this project, e-mail the Center for Reproductive Rights at info@reprorights.org (subject line: NAPIL project.)

Thirty-two states are currently enforcing parental involvement laws. Most of the laws apply to women under 18 and include exceptions for medical emergencies. Some require that teens undergo a 24 or 48 hour delay after parental notification or consent before proceeding with the abortion.

See our factsheet for information on laws in each state.

The Child Custody Protection Act is Unconstitutional

A bill entitled the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed in the House in 1999 but died in the Senate, could be reintroduced this year. The legislation as written would make it a crime for any person, other than a parent, to knowingly transport a woman under the age of 18 across a state line to obtain an abortion if she has not met the requirements for parental notification or consent in her state of residence. Violators of this measure face civil and criminal liability, including imprisonment for up to one year, fines of up to $100,000, or both. It would also allow parents to bring civil suits against anyone assisting the young woman. Prosecution may be avoided if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor because of a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness.

This proposed legislation is unconstitutional because it would:

• burden young women's access to abortion.
• endanger young women by failing to provide a health exception.
• violate principles of federalism.
• usurp the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• hinder the right to travel recognized under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
• compromise the First Amendment right to associate.

Message from Center for Reproductive Rights President Janet Benshoof

Janet Benshoof with Harry Blackmun, former Supreme Court Justice and author of Roe decision.

Roe v. Wade turned twenty-eight on January 22nd, and that is great news. Still, I can't help wondering, and worrying, - especially after seeing what's taking place in Washington, D.C. - if Roe will make it to twenty-nine.

There is no question that the next four years will be contentious ones for the upholders of this landmark Supreme Court decision that recognized a woman's right to choose abortion. First of all, while President George W. Bush successfully suppressed his anti-choice views throughout the campaign, they are strikingly clear now. Several of his key cabinet selections (positions that may have been determined by the time you read this), are indisputably anti-choice. The Congress maintains an anti-choice majority. And it is expected that several Supreme Court justices may leave the bench during this term. Their replacements, and Roe's future, will be largely determined by this conservative leadership.

The person I see as posing the biggest threat to Roe's future is Bush's current choice for attorney general - former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft. While Missouri voters managed to deflect Ashcroft's re-election hopes, Bush has breathed new life into this ultra-conservative's political agenda. And we know what that is. Here is a man that declared in a 1998 letter to the conservative publication "Human Event" that if he could pass but one law, "I would fully recognize the constitutional right to life of every unborn child and ban every abortion except for those medically necessary to save the life of the mother." Need I say more?

Yes, we all need to say more, a lot more, and very loudly. It is inappropriate for the nation's top law officer to be opposed to the rights of half the nation's population. It's like letting the fox guard the chicken house.

John Ashcroft has been one of the major architects of the campaign to eliminate women's reproductive rights in the United States since Roe was decided. During his tenure as both attorney general and governor of Missouri, the state became ground zero in the national battles to eliminate Roe's protections. In 1976, Danforth v. Missouri, the abortion rights of minors were severely curtailed. In Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft of 1983, he was joined by the Reagan-appointed U.S. solicitor general, who argued to overturn Roe for the first time.

Roe was cracked wide open by the 1989 case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, a challenge to legislation that Ashcroft championed as governor mandating that life begins at conception, and eliminating abortion services at public hospitals. In a 5-4 decision, three Supreme Court Justices urged reconsideration of Roe and Justice Scalia suggested that the Court overrule Roe outright. The Court's Webster decision exposed Roe as vulnerable to challenge, and during the next year, three outright bans on abortion were passed and hundreds of restrictions on abortion were introduced in state legislatures across the nation.

Most Americans, the majority of whom are pro-choice, reject Ashcroft's vision. Americans value our Constitution which promises liberty and justice for all, including women. Our nation champions the rights of individuals to make decisions about their bodies and lives freely, without government intervention. Our nation respects religious and philosophical differences and keeps matters of church and state separate.

Can we trust this man to abandon his life's work of championing the unborn to defend the laws protecting women's right to choose abortion or use contraception? Can we trust him to uphold the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a federal law to prosecute those who attack and threaten reproductive health clinics?

I think not. As long as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, our nation's chief lawyer must vigorously protect and defend it with a devotion and passion that John Ashcroft simply does not possess.

So I say with trepidation, and glee, happy birthday, Roe. And many more.

This new publication is an effective tool for any researcher or advocate working to advance women's reproductive rights worldwide.

Activist Corner

Nothing But the Facts:
Charting a Reproductive Rights Course on the Internet

What happened when a man in India petitioned for divorce on the grounds of cruelty because his wife had an abortion without his consent? What was the result of the U.S. case in which a couple tried to recover damages for the expense of rearing a healthy baby who was born as the result of a negligently performed vasectomy? The answers to these questions and more can be found by putting the Center for Reproductive Rights' internet guide to work for you. This new publication, Researching Reproductive Rights on the Web, is an effective tool for any researcher or advocate working to advance women's reproductive rights worldwide.

The first half of the guide is devoted to websites that offer solid background information on women's human rights. In addition to legal sites, this web guide leads researchers through a host of public health, medical and population-related sites. One useful address for finding primary legal sources, as well as scholarly commentary and advocacy materials, is the Women's Human Rights Resources website, hosted by the University of Toronto at (http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/diana). And because news articles can provide a useful launching point for research, the guide lists a number of news sources, such as African News Online (http://www.africanews.org), which contains a database of news reports from over 40 African news organizations.

The second half of the guide helps researchers get down to the nitty-gritty by revealing some of the best places to locate legal texts and policy documents on reproductive rights issues. For instance, information on the questions posed at the beginning of this article can be found by searching the database on The Annual Review of Population Law website at (http://www.law.harvard.edu/Programs/annual_review). Another notable site is the UN Treaty Bodies Database (http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf) which allows researchers to review all of the documents produced by the UN bodies charged with monitoring human rights around the world - an essential tool for tracking the development of human rights norms.

Although the guide is geared toward international research, it does include useful U.S. resources as well. Cornell's Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/), for example, is noted for its links to U.S. federal and state legal materials.

The Center for Reproductive Rights' website is also an excellent resource for reproductive rights information. At our site you can access many of our publications, such as the newest Women of the World reports on Francophone Africa and East Central Europe, as well as our fact sheets, briefing papers and previous RFN articles. You will also find court documents from all of our recent cases to reach the Supreme Court.

Send orders for the Center for Reproductive Rights' guide Researching Reproductive Rights on the Web to publications@reprorights.org or call (917) 637-3600. The cost is $5 plus shipping.

- Jill Molloy

"The World's Abortion Laws 2000" Poster Is Now Available.

This 25 x 22 inch world map features detailed information on the abortion laws of over 190 countries. The easy-to-read, full-color poster is available in English, Spanish and French. Order over the internet, or by calling or faxing us at (917) 637-3600 (tel); (917) 637-3666 (fax). The cost is $4 plus shipping.

Arizona Fetal Tissue Ban Unconstitutional

Current Status: In a decision that will aid medical research and treatment, an Arizona statute banning the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions for medical purposes was ruled unconstitutional December 29, 2000 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Two of the appellate judges agreed with the District Court's earlier finding that the vagueness of the statute left doctors and researchers unable to discern if they were complying with the law. The other appellate judge found that the statute unconstitutionally interfered with reproductive decision-making.

Background: The Arizona fetal tissue ban was enacted in 1983. The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the statute in 1996, representing Arizona residents with Parkinson's disease and health care providers. The Center for Reproductive Rights charged that the law was vague, infringed on the right to obtain medical treatment by chilling the development of promising treatments of infertility and diseases including Parkinson's, and interferes with women's right to make personal decisions regarding childbirth.

For decades, politicians have blocked the medical usage of fetal tissue, despite promising uses to treat diseases such as Parkinson's. President Clinton issued an Executive Order in 1993, lifting a five-year moratorium on both fetal tissue research by federal agencies and federal funding of private research. And recent guidelines issued by the National Institute of Health allow the use of federal funds for research using stem cells derived from fetal tissue. However, Arizona continued to block the use of fetal tissue, despite the relatively large number of persons with Parkinson's disease residing in that state.

Plaintiffs in Forbes v. Napolitano (No. 99-17372, see http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) include three persons suffering from Parkinson's disease, two doctors who treat Parkinson's patients, a doctor specializing in treatment of infertility, and two Planned Parenthood affiliates. They are represented by Bebe Anderson of the Center for Reproductive Rights and cooperating attorney Michael Owen Miller of Tucson, Arizona.

Texas' Medicaid Ban Found Unconstitutional

Current Status: The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas ruled on December 7, 2000 that the Texas ban on Medicaid coverage for low-income women's abortions is unconstitutional. Citing the Texas Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as a basis for its decision, the Court said that when the state chooses to provide medically necessary services to indigent persons, it must not discriminate on the basis of gender, including pregnancy. The state is expected to appeal the decision.

Background: When the Center for Reproductive Rights first challenged the Texas Medicaid policy for providing funding for childbearing but not for medically necessary abortions, our claim was denied by the District Court of Travis County in March 1998. Now that the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas has reversed that lower court decision, sixteen out of twenty-one state courts that have considered near-bans on abortion funding like Texas's have determined that states must provide coverage for all medically necessary abortions. If the ruling is not challenged, approximately 1.4 million women of childbearing age in Texas will be eligible for Medicaid funding if they choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Plaintiffs in Low-Income Women of Texas v. Raiford (No. 03-98-00209-CV) include three physicians who provide reproductive health services, including abortion, the Fairmount Center (Dallas), Reproductive Services (Austin), and Routh Street Women's Clinic (Dallas). They are represented by Bonnie Scott Jones of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and local cooperating attorney Catherine A. Mauzy.

-Suzanne Grossman

| |