Federal Challenge to Bush Censorship of Abortion Speech Dismissed

Center for Reproductive Rights Appeals Decision to Appellate Court

Less than an hour after U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York decided the Center for Reproductive Rights had no standing to challenge President George W. Bush’s censorship of abortion-related speech under the "Global Gag Rule" (GGR), domestic program director Simon Heller filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

"We remain convinced that censorship of Americans is unconstitutional," said Heller, lead counsel in CRLP v. Bush. "We hope that this pro-censorship ruling will be quickly overturned by the court of appeals."

The ruling by Judge Preska is based on an extremely narrow view of the GGR’s harm to the Center for Reproductive Rights' abortion-related speech and advocacy. She also determined that the censorship was not due to the gag rule, but to the decision of foreign non-governmental organizations to accept U.S. aid with restrictions.

Earlier this month, the Bush administration, faced with the embarrassing possibility that its abortion gag would censor the testimony of a witness before Congress, backed away from the GGR’s limitation on abortion rights advocacy. The Center for Reproductive Rights had sought an injunction against the gag rule from Judge Preska so that its Peruvian partner would be free to speak before a hearing in the U.S. Senate about the gag rule’s limitations on abortion law reform in her nation, without jeopardizing U.S. funding.

On June 6, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed its challenge to the GGR, CRLP v. Bush, on the grounds that by censoring speech promoting abortion law reform around the world, the gag rule violates the freedom of speech of American human rights advocates working in the U.S. and overseas. The Center for Reproductive Rights argued that without access to gagged foreign organizations and their information, the Center for Reproductive Rights' lawyers cannot effectively communicate with citizens and activists in other countries, influence governments, or assist in abortion law reform.

Groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights and its foreign partners that support abortion rights are gagged, even in nations where abortion is legal, while organizations working to criminalize abortion or to increase restrictions on abortion access are not censored by the U.S. government.

Effects of Global Gag Rule on abortion reform in Nepal

Nearly six women die a day from unsafe abortions in Nepal and those that are lucky enough to survive these back-alley procedures then risk life imprisonment. Under current laws abortion is prohibited, even in cases of rape, incest or when the life of woman is threatened by the pregnancy.

Photo of Nepali women courtesy of Center for Research on Environment Health and Population Activities (CREHPA)

Nepalese health officials have started to realize the dangers their abortion laws pose for women. A legislative bill is being discussed that contains an amendment that would legalize abortion under certain conditions. The amendment would allow women that have been the victim of rape or incest to have an abortion up to the first 18 weeks of the pregnancy. When the life or health of the mother is in danger, or in cases of fetal deformity, an abortion could be performed at anytime during pregnancy. A married woman can have an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, but only with the consent of the husband.

"The proposed amendment is plagued by vague language," says Melissa Upreti, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights' international program. "It does not define the rights of unmarried women to an abortion or who is qualified to provide abortions. The consent requirements go against international standards on women’s rights and could force more women to seek clandestine abortions."

This is a serious concern because women forced to seek clandestine abortions expose themselves to serious health risks.

"The bill is by no means what the Center for Reproductive Rights would hope for, but even this step forward by the Nepalese government is being threatened, specifically by the Bush Administration’s ‘Global Gag Rule’ (GGR) policy," says Upreti. Organizations that provide reproductive health services and receive funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are being forced to choose between keeping their U.S. support or lobbying the Nepalese government to reform its abortion laws.

"In order to push through all these changes, we are definitely going to need the support of all the health service providers, and it looks like we are not going to be able to get it because of the gag rule," Upreti told the Progressive in an interview in July. "These people deeply influence policy, but they cannot take a position in support of this health reform."

The Family Planning Association of Nepal (FPAN) will forfeit its nearly $250,000 of USAID funding, its executive director, Dr. Nirmal K. Bista, told a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the GGR. "We [FPAN] simply could not stand by and watch countless women suffer and die without doing everything we could to prevent this misery," said Bista.

"Even if the law passes, if more groups like FPAN are forced to forfeit their funds there may not be enough women’s reproductive health organizations with the money to support safe abortion services for women," says Upreti.

Upreti and Laura Katzive, both staff attorneys with the Center for Reproductive Rights' international program, interviewed women imprisoned for having abortions during a fact-finding mission to study the effect of Nepal’s abortion laws on women’s human rights. A study by the Center for Research on Environment, Health, and Population Activities in Nepal found that one-in-five Nepalese women in prison are imprisoned for abortion related offenses. Upreti and Katzive also spoke with Nepalese policy makers, judges, reproductive health workers, and health officials. Their report, developed with partner the Forum for Women, Law and Development, will be published early next year.

In order to capitalize on the political climate, Upreti and Katzive developed advocacy kits that have been translated in Nepali for our partner organizations in the country to use to lobby lawmakers to modify and strengthen the abortion amendment.

American Bar Association Condemns Bush Global Gag Rule

The American Bar Association (ABA) adopted a resolution against the Bush administration’s "Global Gag Rule" (GGR), which restricts abortion-related advocacy and health services by foreign organizations that receive funding from U.S.A.I.D, at its recent annual convention in Chicago.

Julia Ernst, International Legislative Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights and Vice Chair of the Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section’s Committee on the Rights of Women, led the effort on the floor of the House of Delegates.

Ernst urged the House of Delegates, "to support liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and yes, even freedom to argue, for organizations in other countries, as we hold these freedoms so dear here." Ernst, a plaintiff in the Center for Reproductive Rights' lawsuit against the "global gag rule," CRLP v. Bush, later spoke of the Gag Rule’s negative effect both on family planning services and law reform efforts in Nepal. The Center for Reproductive Rights has been working with other organizations in Nepal to stop the imprisonment of women for the "crime" of abortion.

The vote bolsters the mounting movement against President Bush’s GGR to remove these undemocratic restrictions in the courts and in Congress. CRLP v. Bush, dismissed by a federal judge in July, has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The bi-partisan Global Democracy Promotion Act is making progress towards the Senate floor both as an amendment to the Foreign Operation Appropriations Act and as a stand-alone bill. The bill would prohibit restrictions on foreign assistance based solely upon medical services, including counseling and referral, provided by foreign non-governmental organizations with their own funds. It would also prevent the U.S. from imposing unconstitutional restrictions on legal lobbying and advocacy.

Groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights and its foreign partners that support abortion rights are gagged, even in nations where abortion is legal, while organizations working to criminalize abortion or to increase restrictions on abortion access are not censored by the U.S. government.

The ABA is the largest membership organization of U.S. lawyers.

Women Use Tribunal To Tell Of Poland’s Restrictive Abortion Laws

At the tribunal from left to right: Wanda Nowicka, FWFP; Christina Zampas, Center for Reproductive Rights; Francoise Girard, IWHC

Alice, a mother of three from Poland, risked losing her eyesight if she gave birth to a fourth child from an unintended pregnancy. She turned to her doctor for a referral to have a legal. Only one doctor would give Alice the referral, and when she went to a public hospital for the abortion the gynecologist tore the paper up. Alice, dependant on welfare for years, gave birth to the child and now cannot care for her children or work to help support her family because of her condition.

Alice’s story is just one of many cases of women suffering from Poland’s restrictive abortion laws and the pervasive social stigma associated with the procedure. Poland allows abortions only in cases of the mother’s life or health being in danger or in cases of fetal deformity or the pregnancy was the result of a crime. The Center for Reproductive Rights and its Polish partner, the Federation for Women and Family Planning (FWFP), convened a mock tribunal to shed light on the struggle Polish women must endure to exercise their reproductive rights. The tribunal consisted of seven real-life stories of women’s experiences with trying to obtain abortions.

"The tribunal illustrated the real consequences of Poland's very restrictive abortion law --that it endangers women's lives and health," said Christina Zampas, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights' international program. "There is something terribly wrong with a system of justice when current laws compromise a woman's right to health and life, and her right to self-determination."

The tribunal took place in Warsaw on July 25 and seven testimonials were read to a tribunal composed of international experts, including Poland’s former deputy minister of health and former minister of justice.

"The women's stories truly moved the audience," said Wanda Nowicka, executive director of FWFP. "The comments of the judges of the symbolic tribunal were so accurate and comprehensive. They criticized the Polish law from the perspective of gender equality, international legal and human rights standards. The media coverage has been really successful."

The panelists can be found on the Center for Reproductive Rights web site.

Much Work Still Needed to Protect Senegalese Women

The Senegalese government has adopted a number of progressive laws and policies to protect women’s reproductive rights, but needs to take more action to enforce these measures and ensure women know their rights.

That was the message Laura Katzive, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights' international program, delivered in a ""shadow" report to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on August 13 in Geneva. Katzive presented the publication to supplement the Senegalese government’s report to the UN Committee. The Center for Reproductive Rights co-authored the report with Groupe de recherche femmes et lois au Senegal (GREFELS), its partner in Senegal.

"In many respects, Senegal has taken a progressive stance in policy and legislation to protect women’s reproductive rights," said Katzive. "The problem is that too many women do not know what protections law makers have afforded them. In addition, some of the more progressive laws are having little effect because they are not being enforced."

• In Senegal, female genital mutilation (FGM) has been outlawed since 1999. Further action is needed to stop this dangerous practice, which in some ethnic groups has a prevalence rate of 80% to 100%. The national prevalence rate is 20%.

• Women and men are often in the dark about contraceptive options offered by the public health care sector. There are some public sector programs that supply condoms, but only 30 % of women and men surveyed are aware of the programs. While Senegal has been proactive in its efforts to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, sustained awareness-raising is needed to prevent an increase in the rate of infection, which is currently at 1.77% of the population.

• Early marriage remains a problem for girls. The minimum age for a girl’s first marriage is low at 16 years of age while for men it is 20. In some areas, girls are still being married at the age of 12 or 13.

• Women and men are often in the dark about contraceptive options offered by the public health care sector. There are some public sector programs that supply condoms, but only 30 % of women and men surveyed are aware of the programs. Senegal needs to sustain its efforts to make women and men aware of the dangers of HIV infection or the prevalence of the disease among the population, now at 1.77% of the population, could increase.

• The report also points out where legislation that respects women’s rights is still needed, particularly on the subject of abortion, which is considered a crime in Senegal.

GREFELS worked with the Center for Reproductive Rights as co-editors of the Women of the World: Francophone Africa report, published by the Center for Reproductive Rights and prepared the chapter of that report on Senegal.

"Women on Waves" Helping To Turn Tide On Abortion Restrictions

The past decade has been a time of remarkable economic growth and social change in Ireland, yet it remains the only country in the European Union to severely restrict abortion. Currently abortion is illegal in all circumstances other than when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life. This summer Irish pro-choice activists welcomed a visit by the Women on Waves ship, a fully equipped reproductive health care clinic that travels to countries where abortion is illegal. The visit attracted national and international attention to the lack of safe, legal abortion in Ireland. The trip to Ireland was the ship’s "maiden visit" and was supported by a group of over 200 Irish volunteers nationwide.

The ship in Dublin.

Currently, over 6,300 Irish women go to Britain for abortions each year, yet cannot avail themselves of the same service in their home country. Even those women who face life-threatening pregnancies must suffer through many obstacles to obtain abortion services in Ireland. The "Irish solution to the Irish problem" - exporting the abortion issue to Britain - is no solution for women facing a crisis pregnancy.

The Women on Waves visit was an enormous success in Ireland. Although complications with the Dutch licensing laws led to a decision not to provide abortions at sea during this visit, volunteers successfully provided abortion information and contraceptive access, including emergency contraceptives, that would otherwise have been unavailable in Ireland. The ship served over 300 women while also drawing international attention to the enormous difficulties created by Ireland’s draconian abortion laws.

Women on Waves was overwhelmed by requests for services and information concerning abortion and contraception. Even pro-choice people who had worked in Ireland for decades were surprised by the demand for services, and by the large numbers of women willing to come to the ship for abortions.

The Women on Waves Foundation is in the process of obtaining its clinic license and as a result might challenge the Dutch law regulating abortion. The existing Dutch law pre-dates the development of RU-486 and as a result severely restricts which physicians may prescribe the drug. In addition, portions of the law's regulatory provisions cannot accommodate this type of innovative sea-faring facility.

In addition to providing services, the Women on Waves project had a great effect at persuading the Irish media and the public generally to express pro-choice sentiments, even from people who initially opposed the ship itself. Volunteers were also able to use the ship as a way to organize discussion groups of doctors, lawyers, artists, trade unionists and others to address the abortion issue. As a result many individuals have committed to organizing more extensively within their communities and professions. Several people commented that they had not seen the pro-choice movement in Ireland so invigorated for over a decade, if ever.

Supporters by the ship.

While a new national poll shows that almost two-thirds of the country wants abortion to be available in some circumstances in Ireland, the Irish government instead advocates for yet another anti-abortion referendum, to pander to a vocal anti-abortion minority favored by the Catholic Church. Women on Waves provided an opportunity for pro-choice Irish people to speak out and demand a better alternative, generating waves of support as it headed back to the Netherlands.

-Julie F. Kay is a former Center for Reproductive Rights staff attorney, now living in Dublin and working with Women on Waves as well as a legal consultant for the Irish Family Planning Association.

Photos by Andrew Flood

Center for Reproductive Rights Attorneys Speak Their Minds on Irish Abortion Ship's Voyage in Newsday Kathy Hall-Martinez, deputy director, and Christina Zampas, staff attorney, of the international program told Newsday readers on July 23 about the importance of the seagoing reproductive health clinic Aurora’s maiden voyage to Ireland. "Women all over the world are demanding that their rights as human beings be met: that their rights to health, life and autonomy are recognized by governments across the globe," wrote Hall-Martinez and Zampas. "Praise is due to Women on Waves for providing a vessel to carry the message of women’s basic human rights to Irish shores and beyond."

Bush ‘In-Bed’ with Abstinence Program Pushers

In President George W. Bush’s latest assault on women’s reproductive health program funding, his administration wants to increase federal funding for abstinence-only education programs while it refuses to bolster support for family planning programs, reported the Washington Post on July 30.

Abstinence-only education programs focus solely on telling young adults that they should not engage in sexual activity until marriage. The Bush administration favors only funding these programs, not abstinence programs that incorporate teachings into areas such as what forms of contraception are available.

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in early July that it had awarded $17.1 million in grants to 49 communities to develop abstinence-only education programs for young people age 12 to 18. The grants are part of the $50 million per year appropriation for abstinence-only education provided by the Abstinence Education Formula Block Grant Program. The program was created by the 1996 welfare reform act and is up for re-authorization after this year.

"Under the pretext of preventing teen pregnancy, the Bush administration is funding anti-choice, religious and other organizations, whose abstinence-only focus harms teenagers by denying them critical, potentially life-saving information about contraception, safer sex practices and sexuality," says Jody Ratner, the Center for Reproductive Rights' NAPIL Fellowship Attorney, who focuses on minors' rights.

The battle is well underway as pro-abstinence-only groups are touting Bush’s support of their efforts. "We’re getting nothing but support from the Bush administration," Leslee J. Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse told the Post. "He has personally talked to me about doing anything and everything he can to support abstinence-until-marriage education."

The Center for Reproductive Rights and more than 35 other groups joined in opposing abstinence-only education programs because the programs censor other forms of speech on human sexuality. "We therefore are deeply concerned about publicly-funded sexuality education programs that restrict students’ access to information and limit learning to one ‘approved’ message about human sexuality," states a joint declaration issued by the groups.

If HHS had continued to deny the waiver then in New York alone some 400,000 women would have been denied access to family planning.

Bush Reverses On Waivers To Expand Medicaid Coverage for Family Planning

President George W. Bush’s administration did an about-face recently as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it would approve state requests to expand Medicaid coverage for family planning programs, but only after drawing harsh criticism from groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights and several members of Congress.

In late July, HHS announced that it would deny waivers requested by several states to expand family planning coverage under Medicaid to low-income women. The waiver requested by New York would have allowed women and their families earning up to 200% of the poverty line or $22,500 to receive family planning coverage under Medicaid.

HHS argued that it denied the waivers on the basis that the states did not request more than a single healthcare benefit. However, the New York proposal included providing contraceptives and counseling, as well as screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases.

If HHS had continued to deny the waiver then in New York alone some 400,000 women would have been denied access to family planning. Waivers by several states are still pending approval.

Dr. Carhart Reinstated to Faculty Position at University of Nebraska One Year After Firing Based on Abortion Speech

Dr. LeRoy Carhart

The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) agreed to reinstate Dr. LeRoy Carhart to his position as volunteer faculty and pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $65,000. The settlement followed a decision by a federal judge last April that Dr. LeRoy Carhart’s termination from UNMC resulted from his successful participation in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Nebraska’s abortion ban. The judge further indicated that Carhart was likely to succeed in the claim that his First Amendment right to free speech had been violated by the UNMC.

"Both the Supreme Court case and this wrongful termination lawsuit have made one principle resoundingly clear: no matter where one stands on the issue of choice, it is illegal to violate an individual’s constitutional rights in pursuit of that belief," stated Dr. Carhart. "I intend to use part of the monetary award from the University of Nebraska for a local chapter of Medical Students for Choice and to provide funding for the local Abortion Access Fund."

"This victory sends a message to state officials around the country that they cannot stigmatize or intimidate abortion providers by attacks on their free speech," stated Simon Heller, lead counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "We will use our portion of the awarded attorneys’ fees to continue our case against President Bush and his restrictive, undemocratic global gag on free speech relating to abortion."

Arizona Appeals Court Upholds State Law Banning Funding for Medically Necessary Abortions

Women suffering from diseases such as Grave’s Disease, epilepsy, lupus, and congenital heart disease that need a medically necessary abortion will not receive coverage from the state of Arizona, ruled the Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals on August 7. The Center for Reproductive Rights has filed an appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Center for Reproductive Rights argued that Arizona’s ban on coverage for medically necessary abortions violates women’s right to choose abortion and their right to privacy by denying them Medicaid coverage for potentially life-saving procedures. The ban was struck down as unconstitutional under the Arizona Constitution by the trial court last year. Alaska, Indiana, and Texas decisions have ruled that refusal to fund medically necessary abortions is unconstitutional.

"Indigent women suffering from conditions such as cancer and diabetes should not be forced to sacrifice their health and safety because of their economic status," said Janet Crepps, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the plaintiffs.

In May 2000, trial court Judge Kenneth L. Fields, in agreement with the Center for Reproductive Rights' position, wrote, "while the State is not required under its Constitution to fund health care for the poor, once it does so, it cannot require [indigent women for whom an abortion is medically necessary] to give up fundamental State constitutional rights in order to receive public funds for health care."

Judge Blocks Louisiana Law Subjecting Abortion Providers to 10-year Lawsuit Threat

Physicians that provide abortion services in Louisiana will be able to sleep easier now that Judge Janice Clark of the 19th Judicial District Court has blocked a state law that subjected providers to 10 years of civil liability for any damages caused by an abortion. Judge Clark, who announced her decision on July 24, found the statute to be "unconstitutionally vague."

"The Court confirmed that the State cannot scare physicians out of providing women with their constitutionally protected right to an abortion," said Simon Heller, Director of the Center for Reproductive Rights' Domestic Program and counsel for the plaintiffs.

Abortion providers were subjected to a 10-year period of civil liability for any damages caused by an abortion, including damage to an "unborn child," defined from the moment of conception, under the statute. In addition, physicians would not be protected under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act for their abortion services. However, doctors or nurses that refuse to perform or assist in an abortion and the woman dies are exempt from civil or criminal liability.

The 1997 law had been blocked by the order of a federal court until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the case in March 2001. Judge Clark issued a temporary injunction on March 26 following the Center for Reproductive Rights' case against the law filed in state court.

Many physicians may have shut their doors to women seeking abortion services if the law had been enforced. With abortion services, distance matters, and some women would not have been able to be able to travel for the procedure.

The Center for Reproductive Rights and William Rittenberg of the New Orleans firm Rittenberg and Samuel represented Causeway Medical Suite, Bossier City Medical Suite, Hope Medical Group for Women, and James DeGeurce, M.D. in Women’s Health Clinic v. State of Louisiana.

Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Allow States to Expand Medicaid Family Planning Services Without Waiver

In response to the Bush administration’s reluctance to allow several states to expand family planning services to women under Medicaid, Senators Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) introduced legislation that would allow states this right without a federal waiver. Although Medicaid does not cover most abortion services, states were permitted in the mid-1990s to expand family planning benefits through Medicaid by applying for waivers.

The bill would allow states to extend family planning services under Medicaid to women with incomes of up to 185% of the federal poverty level without needing a waiver from Health and Human Services. The bill also would allow states to provide family planning services under Medicaid to low-income women at any time after childbirth, eliminating the federal time limit of 60 days postpartum. In addition, the legislation would allow states to extend family planning services for up to one year to women who lose Medicaid eligibility "because of an increase in income." Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Jim Greenwood (R-PA) have introduced a similar bill in the House.

Since the early 1990s, fourteen states have been granted family planning waivers to extend coverage to those low-income women and men who would not otherwise qualify for Medicaid, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Those waivers resulted in an additional 1.3 million people accessing family planning services, says the organization.

House Committee Votes to Correct Bush Exclusion of Contraceptive Coverage for Federal Employees

The House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) to reinstate contraceptive coverage to Federal employees, a provision left out of budget requests by President George W. Bush.

The vote of 40 to 21 amends the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Originally passed in 1998, this provision must be renewed annually.

"Finally, state governments, federal agencies, and courts around this country are beginning to affirm what the American people already know: access to contraception prevents unintended pregnancy," said Rosemary Dempsey, Director of the Washington D.C. Office of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Office of Personnel Management determined this year that contraceptive coverage does not increase FEHBP premiums. Women could pay as much as $300-$700 annually if denied this coverage. Financial concerns can delay and prevent contraceptive use, therefore increasing the estimated three million unintended pregnancies American women face each year.

Since 1998, Congress has approved legislative language to ensure all federal employees participating in FEHBP have access to comprehensive contraceptive coverage. The program provides coverage for 9 million federal employees of which 1.2 million are women of childbearing age. Before Congress took action on contraceptive equity, only 19% of federal health plans covered the full range of prescription contraceptives, and 10% of the plans offered no contraceptive coverage at all.

Despite the victory for contraceptive coverage, the Committee rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) to provide coverage for abortion services via FEHBP.

New Factsheets

Laws and Regulations Affecting Medical Abortion

From "physician-only" laws to mandatory delays or consent requirements, many states have imposed restrictions and administrative "red tape" to prevent women’s right to a medical abortion. A new fact sheet by the Center for Reproductive Rights, "Laws and Regulations Affecting Medical Abortion," discusses these barriers to medical abortion. On a positive note, September 28 marks the one-year anniversary of mifepristone’s approval by the Federal Drug Administration.

The Latest Anti-Abortion Scare Tactic: Breast Cancer Risk

Despite mounting evidence by the nation’s leading cancer research organizations, including the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, that there is no link between breast cancer and induced abortion, anti-choice state lawmakers have been introducing legislation that would force doctors to provide medically inaccurate information that abortion increasing the risk of breast cancer this year.

There have been 37 pieces of this type of legislation introduced in 19 states this year alone [with each bill either amending the state’s current anti-choice "Informed Consent" law or including it in proposed "Informed Consent,"] according to Karen Raschke, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights' state program.

The Center for Reproductive Rights' new fact sheet, "The Latest Anti-Abortion Scare Tactic: Breast Cancer Risk," has more information on the medical evidence that contradicts this latest deceptive tactic by anti-choice activists, as well as information about the Center for Reproductive Rights' legal action on this front.

| |