As if the pro-choice community did not already know which side President George W. Bush stands on a woman's right to choose abortion, he made it abundantly clear on the 29th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

"Our nation should set a great goal, that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law," said President Bush via telephone to participants of the anti-abortion rally, the March for Life, held in Washington, D.C. on January 22, the anniversary of the Roe decision."My administration opposes partial birth abortion and public funding for abortion."

"My administration opposes partial birth abortion and public funding for abortion," said President Bush.

Protecting Rights

The Center for Reproductive Rights marked the Roe anniversary by acknowledging our uncompromising and unyielding determination to protect the rights of women to choose abortion. In a statement of our determination to fight to protect women's right to choose, Rosemary Dempsey, director of our Washington, D.C. office stated:

"The power, inspiration and significance of Roe is that it recognized that the right to choose whether and when to have a child is central to women's lives and their ability to participate fully and equally in society." She added, "Today, 29 years after this landmark decision, Americans are not aware of how close we are to losing our freedom to exercise this right. Americans are not aware that a majority of the nine justices on the Supreme Court do not support Roe's most important provisions."

With President Bush firmly supporting the anti-abortion movement, the Senate becomes the frontline in the battle for the right to choose. The president is attempting to stock the federal judiciary with anti-choice jurists. Senators that consider themselves pro-choice must hold the line against Bush's anti-abortion nominees to the federal courts.

"The Supreme Court is clearly the main battleground in the effort to preserve and strengthen Roe," said Dempsey. "But it is not the only court determining Roe's reach. Lower federal courts are reshaping the right to choose by hollowing out the protections Roe established for women's choices. Largely dominated by conservative judges appointed for life during the Reagan and Bush administrations, these courts often have the last word on women's reproductive rights because only a fraction of abortion cases are ever reviewed by the Supreme Court."

She added, "Many of President Bush's sixty-six judicial nominees would tip the balance on many courts from one that will uphold the provisions of Roe to one that will aggressively act to undermine protection for women's choices. It is imperative that the Senate not confirm anyone to the federal bench who will not publicly affirm the constitutional values of Roe and the right of women to control their own destinies."

In addition to the advocacy and litigation efforts of the Center for Reproductive Rights to protect women's right to choose, we took part in a press conference on the state of reproductive choice in America held in Washington, D.C. on Roe's anniversary. The Center for Reproductive Rights was a part of a coalition of 25 women's reproductive rights groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, who participated in the press conference.

The Center for Reproductive Rights also sponsored, with other groups, an advertisement campaign published in Newsweek and Roll Call to alert readers to the fact that it would take just one vote by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

The Center for Reproductive Rights created a special report on the legal history of the Roe decision, its future, the key Supreme Court decisions affecting Roe, and an inter-active quiz on the Roe decision on our web site.

After Three Decades of Legal Abortion, Access Still Under Fire

Around the world the number of abortions performed is not affected by the legality of the procedure, according to a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), released on the 29th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Instead a woman's ability to avoid unwanted pregnancies by using contraceptives plays the biggest factor in decreasing the number of abortions.

"In country after country, the introduction of modern methods of contraception is associated with declines in abortion rates," said AGI.

Women in developed and developing regions have strikingly similar abortion levels - 39 procedures per 1,000 women and 34 per 1,000 women per year, respectively. Some 210 million women around the world become pregnant each year. Of those pregnancies, 80 million are unplanned, 46 million of which will end in abortion. Internationally, the lifetime average is about one abortion per woman. Nearly 230 million women worldwide do not want to be pregnant, yet lack effective contraceptive protection.

In the United States, following the Roe decision to legalize abortion in 1973, the U.S. abortion rate increased briefly, peaking in 1980 at 29 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. It then declined, gradually at first, but more steeply after 1990, according to the study. The current rate (as of 1997) is 22 abortions per 1,000 women.

Anniversary of Petition to Make EC Available Over-the-Counter

On February 14, 2001, Center for Reproductive Rights staff attorney Bonnie Scott Jones filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the behalf of more than 60 medical groups to make emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) available over-the-counter. In this question and answer, Jones discusses the developments in the petition, as well as her thoughts on what other obstacles lie ahead for women obtaining easier access to emergency contraception.

Reproductive Freedom News (RFN): What is the status of our petition to the FDA?

Bonnie Scott Jones (BSJ):

The petition is pending before the FDA. They have not decided to rule on the petition yet. They are required to give some form of response within six months. They failed to do so, and we reminded them of that obligation. They wrote back and said that this raises complicated questions and we need more time. That is one of the responses they are allowed to give. And so we are now coming up on the anniversary, when they again are supposed to tell us the status. They can again tell us that they need more time. And I can virtually guarantee that is what they are going to do.

RFN: Why is it important for women to have over-the-counter access to emergency contraception?

BSJ: The most important reason is that, unlike other medical treatments, there is an extremely short window of time in which EC can be used effectively. EC has to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex and it is more effective if used within the first 24 hours. It is not like getting a cold and you can wait around five days before you get your medicine. You need it extremely quickly, the sooner the better, and it will really make a difference. The other main reason is that the prescription requirements slow down the process of a woman getting emergency contraception. She has to get in touch with the doctor, find a doctor who will give her the prescription, and then call into a pharmacy that is willing to fill it. That takes a lot longer than a woman just going to her local drug store to pick up EC off the shelf next to other forms of contraception.

RFN: Some critics of making emergency contraception available over-the-counter have charged that without a prescription there is an opportunity for the drug to be abused by women, specifically young women, instead of using other forms of contraception. What would you say to these critics?

BSJ: I think it is both unreasonable and highly unlikely. If you look at the kind of factors that might play into a young woman's decision of what contraceptive to use, EC is not a desirable choice. It is very expensive compared to a condom. A condom is a matter of cents and I believe a package of EC is between $20 and $30 at the pharmacy. It makes women nauseous. It is not that pleasant. So it has unpleasant side effects that are much more uncomfortable than the side effects of a diaphragm or a condom.

Although emergency contraception is a lot more effective than doing nothing, it reduces the chance of pregnancy in the neighborhood of 70%, but the pill is in the high nineties as well as condoms in terms of their effectiveness as a method of contraception. I don't think anyone is going to choose an expensive, not as effective, nausea-causing contraceptive over the contraception that is available for use on an ongoing basis.

RFN: If the FDA said tomorrow that it was going to make EC available over-the-counter, what barriers still remain or could come up to prevent better access for women to EC?

BSJ: There is the monetary barrier. If the FDA approves these drugs as over-the-counter, that does not mean that the two drug companies that sell EC have the money to make them available over-the-counter. It takes an enormous amount of money to put an over-the-counter drug on the shelves of stores. Unless you are going to be able to do a lot of advertising, get people to know about it and therefore develop a market for the drug, the store or pharmacists will not put it on their shelves.

Then there are legal obstacles. States could try to pass laws that require parental consent before a teen could purchase EC. They would probably be unconstitutional, but that does not mean the legislatures would not try to pass them and the laws would still have to be challenged.

Urging Secretary Thompson to Support FDA Review of EC

As part of the Center for Reproductive Rights' effort to have emergency contraception pills be made available over-the-counter, we wrote the letter below to the Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson. The letter is intended to give individuals concerned with women's reproductive health, the opportunity to show their support for making emergency contraception more easily obtainable for women. The letter can be immediately sent to Secretary Thompson by adding your personal information.

Secretary Tommy Thompson The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Secretary Thompson,

Over 7,400 American women become pregnant unintentionally every day.

I write to request that you take action to prevent the staggering three million unintended pregnancies that occur in the United States every year.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a solution that could cut the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in half: making emergency contraception available over-the-counter.

I urge you to provide the FDA all of the necessary resources and support it needs to make a decision quickly on over-the-counter status for emergency contraception.

Last February, over 70 medical groups petitioned the FDA to make emergency contraception available without a prescription. Because emergency contraception must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, and is most effective when used within 24 hours, any delay increases the likelihood of unintended pregnancy. Making emergency contraception available over-the-counter ensures that women will not have to wait to take the drug.

Each day we wait for the FDA to make a decision about emergency contraception, thousands of women become pregnant unintentionally. That is why it is so important to put this safe and effective contraception option into the hands of American women.

Secretary Thompson, I know that you support greater access to contraception and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Please take action today.

Keeping Reproductive Choice for Young Women Safe, Legal and Confidential

By Jody Ratner

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that a minor has the same right as an adult to choose abortion. However, the Court has permitted states to drastically restrict young women's ability to obtain abortion services through legislative measures, such as parental involvement laws.

As a National Association of Public Interest Law (NAPIL) Fellowship Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, I have been working to mitigate the impact of forced parental involvement laws on young women seeking abortions. More than 30 states currently enforce laws that require a young woman seeking an abortion to notify or obtain the written consent of one or both of her parents prior to the procedure. Several states have laws under review by courts and many states have bills pending in their legislature to enact new or more restrictive laws. In recent months, the New Jersey legislature introduced four bills mandating parental involvement for abortion, despite a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that New Jersey's parental notification statute was unconstitutional.

Forced parental involvement laws threaten the health and well-being of young women and severely restrict a young woman's ability to obtain a safe, legal, and confidential abortion. Most young women are not aware of these laws until they are facing an unwanted pregnancy. While more than half of young women voluntarily involve a parent in their decision, some adolescents cannot or do not want to turn to their parents for help.

There are many reasons why a young woman may not want to involve a parent in her decision. Some young women fear they will be thrown out of the house or simply have a lack communication about sex with their parents; other young women have parents who are opposed to abortion and fear that they will be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Some are victims of abuse or incest. Even so most young women recognize the value of adult involvement in their decision process regarding an abortion. Studies have shown that 81% of minors involved at least one adult (over 21-years-old), including 90% among minors younger than 16. However, neither these facts nor the potential harm to young women have not deterred lawmakers from continuing to impose barriers to young women's right to choose abortion.

In December 2001, my work brought me to the Advocates for Youth's 20th Anniversary Conference in Washington, D.C. As part of my presentation, I briefed a diverse group of people including sexuality educators, health care providers and youth activists on the current status of young women's right to abortion in the United States. My co-panelists included the director of public policy for Choice USA, a youth-based organization committed to reproductive freedom, and Choice USA's field director, who works directly with young people leading the fight for reproductive choice in their communities.

One of the main messages of the panel discussion was that young people can play an important role in the legislative process to prevent the enactment of restrictive laws and to promote laws that recognize the importance of comprehensive, confidential health care service for young women and men. Despite the fact that those under 18 are unable to vote, young people can have an impact. Young women and men can educate and register voters; lobby a local or national official or school board member by letter, email, phone or personal visit; present testimony regarding a specific piece of legislation; and, one day, VOTE!

Specifically, young activists can work in their state legislatures to help prevent the enactment of new or more restrictive parental involvement laws. Young people can also educate others about how these measures hurt young women, create delays and obstacles to medical care, increase the risk of abortion, and, for some, deny access to abortion altogether. Young people can also educate themselves and their peers about parental involvement requirements, as well as how to obtain a waiver of those requirements through a "judicial bypass." The hope is that by having this information in advance, a young woman facing an unwanted pregnancy may be fully aware of and able to access all of her options.

Ms. Ratner is a National Association of Public Interest Law (NAPIL) Fellowship Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. She is in the final year of a two-year project to mitigate the impact of forced parental involvement laws on young women seeking abortions.

New Challenge to Florida 'Choose Life' License Plates

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a case in federal court in January challenging the constitutionality of Florida's "Choose Life" license plate scheme. The Center for Reproductive Rights is seeking a temporary restraining order to block further distribution of the more than $600,000 collected from purchase of the plates.

"This scheme turns the Florida government into a fundraiser for the anti-choice movement," says Brigitte Amiri, the Center for Reproductive Rights attorney who represents the plaintiffs.

While there have been previous unsuccessful challenges to the Florida license plates, this is the first challenge to address the constitutionality of the distribution of funds under the Florida law.

The guidelines of the Florida law, passed in 1999, prohibit money collected from purchase of the "Choose Life" plates from being distributed to any agency "that is involved or associated with abortion activities, including counseling for or referrals to abortion clinics, providing medical abortion-related procedures, or pro-abortion advertising." Therefore, any agency providing counseling free-of-charge to pregnant women is barred from receiving funds if they counsel women about all of their options, including adoption, abortion and keeping the child once it is born; only those agencies who withhold information about abortion are eligible for funds. This type of viewpoint discrimination is in violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

In addition, although under the law Florida counties are responsible for the distribution of the funds, some counties have delegated this responsibility to religious organizations such as Catholic Charities, a Roman Catholic organization. By doing so, the Florida government demonstrates a preference for one religion over all others in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Center for Reproductive Rights has also challenged Louisiana's "Choose Life" license plate program.

Plaintiffs in Women's Emergency Network v. Bush include two nonprofit organizations and an individual taxpayer. Brigitte Amiri, Hillary Schwab and Priscilla J. Smith of the Center for Reproductive Rights represent the plaintiffs along with local counsel Louis M. Silber of Silber & Valente.

Mother Seeks Legal Recognition for Posthumously Conceived Twins

In January, the Center for Reproductive Rights appealed the decision of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to deny benefits to five-year-old twins conceived to an Arizona woman after the death of her husband.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the lawsuit in the Tucson Division of Arizona District Court against the SSA seeking a reversal of its initial 1996 decision. This lawsuit was filed a week and a half after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a similar case that children conceived posthumously can be considered legal heirs.

"The Social Security Administration has flaunted Arizona state law and the requirements of the federal Social Security Act, while denying the legal and constitutional rights of children," stated Hagit Elul, a Center for Reproductive Rights attorney who represents the plaintiff.

Rhonda Gillett-Netting and Robert Netting, a professor at the University of Arizona, were trying to conceive a child when he was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a form of cancer, in December 1994. During his illness, the couple made the decision to continue with in-vitro fertilization treatments, even in the event of his death. He lost his fight with cancer in February 1995. The twins were conceived after his death and were born August 6, 1996.

Three years after Rhonda Gillett-Netting first filed for benefits, an SSA administrative law judge denied her claims based on his interpretation of Arizona state law. In determining whether an applicant is the "child" of an insured individual, the SSA is required to follow the state laws regarding inheritance. Arizona law states that children are entitled to inherit from their biological parents. In December 2001, Gillett-Netting was informed that the SSA Appeals Council, the highest appeals level with in the administration, had denied her claim. Filing a lawsuit in federal court is the only available option to gain benefits for the children.

Similar cases have been filed in Louisiana, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Both the New Jersey and Massachusetts state courts have found that posthumously conceived children are entitled to inherit under state law. In the Louisiana case, the children were ultimately awarded the SSA benefits.

Rhonda Gillett-Netting and her children are represented in Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart by Bebe Anderson and Hagit Elul of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and local cooperating counsel Michael Owen Miller of Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP in Tucson. The named defendant is Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security.

South Carolina Faces Question of Warrantless Criminal Searches of Pregnant Women for Second Time

In January, the Center for Reproductive Rights argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) did not obtain consent from its patients, pregnant women, prior to submitting the results of urine tests to local law enforcement officials. Last year, the United States Supreme Court sided with the Center for Reproductive Rights in finding that MUSC's actions violated the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure mandates in the absence of consent, and sent the case back to the lower court to determine if MUSC obtained proper consent of the women.

"In this case, not only did the hospital fail to obtain informed consent, it abused its patients' faith in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship to obtain evidence for the police," said Priscilla Smith, lead counsel in the case, Ferguson v. City of Charleston, and Acting Director of the Domestic Program of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The issue before the court is whether MUSC obtained their patients' "knowing consent" prior to testing their urine. Several of the Ferguson plaintiffs testified that the hospital deceived them by using clever strategies. One patient stated that MUSC tricked her into providing urine by telling her that they needed to test her for dehydration. Other plaintiffs received the hospital's general hospital information letters after they had been searched for drugs. The Center for Reproductive Rights maintains that no such consent was either requested or given, rendering MUSC's actions unwarranted searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

In 2000, the Center for Reproductive Rights successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that MUSC's drug testing scheme was dangerous to the women and their children and counterproductive because it deterred women from seeking medical care. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, found that the scheme violated all American citizens' constitutional rights to privacy when seeking medical treatment.

Bush Budget Proposal Would Increase Abstinence-only Education Funding

Ignoring a lack of evidence that teenagers benefit from sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy and AIDS, President George W. Bush will seek a 33 percent increase in funding for abstinence-only education in the 2003 federal budget, reported the Associated Press.

Abstinence-only education programs focus solely on telling young adults that they should not engage in sexual activity until marriage.

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

The Bush administration is proposing $135 million for abstinence-only education next year, an increase of $33 million.

By proposing the increase, the Bush administration is disregarding the desire of public educators for more support in teaching sexual education and studies that show that teenagers across the nation want more information from their sexual education programs about ways to protect themselves against pregnancy, AIDS and other STDs.

A study released last year by U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher found "no scientific support" for concerns that sexual education in the classroom leads to earlier sexual activity among teens. The study stated that students who had been taught comprehensive sexual education rather than abstinence-only sex education were more likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active. This is extremely important because the study states that 39% of ninth graders and 65% of twelfth graders have had sex. It also states further that one in four sexually active teens will contract a least one STD, while 40% of girls become pregnant at least once before the age of 20.

Last year, the Center for Reproductive Rights and more than 35 other groups joined in opposing abstinence-only education programs. "We 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," stated a joint declaration issued by the groups.

Family Planning Funds Held Up By Anti-Choice Politics

One year after reinstating the Global Gag Rule (GGR), President George W. Bush is now holding up funds authorized by Congress for one of the most important providers of international family planning, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). President Bush is holding back the funds in order to appease anti-choice members of Congress.

"The U.S. has made numerous pledges during international conferences to significantly increase foreign assistance for reproductive health and family planning," said Rosemary Dempsey, Director of the Center for Reproductive Rights' Washington, D.C. office and staff attorney Julia Ernst in a letter to President Bush. "However, it has yet to live up to these commitments. Whereas funding UNFPA at the $34 million level is a step in the right direction, a decision to limit this funding - or worse, to defund UNFPA entirely - would represent a significant default by the U.S. on its international commitments."

The House and Senate reached a compromise on the Foreign Operations bill that appropriated some $446 million to support overseas family planning assistance for 2002, in addition to as much as $34 million for UNFPA. However, the compromise removed language from the bill, approved by the Senate, that would have overturned the GGR policy. UNFPA's funding was subject to approval by President Bush, who earmarked $25 million for the agency in his original budget proposal. His threat to withhold U.S. funding is being done at the behest of anti-choice Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ).

Smith, one of the most virulent anti-family planning members of Congress, has long obstructed increased funding for UNFPA. He claims his opposition is based on the agency's presence in China, where UNFPA is working to convince the Chinese government to replace its one-child policy with voluntary family planning. He and other conservatives pushed to divert funds away from UNFPA.

The President does have discretion to hold up the funds if he believes that UNFPA is participating in forced abortion or sterilization. But, UNFPA's regulations allow it to only operate in areas of China where the one-child policy was lifted. Secretary of State Colin Powell has long supported the workd of UNFPA. A recent U.S. State Department audit found no evidence of UNFPA's involvement in forced abortion or sterilization in China. Despite this the President is indicating that he will appease Smith, while endangering the lives of millions of women around the world that benefit from UNFPA's support.

According to UNFPA, a loss of U.S. funding "could undermine their capacity to prevent 800,000 abortions and the deaths of 4,700 mothers and 77,000 children under the age of five."

President Bush should immediately release the funds to UNFPA.

Reproductive Health and Rights in Lithuania: Developing Effective Laws and Policies

Women's reproductive health and rights have spent years on the back burner in Lithuania, while the Baltic nation has focused on economic reforms required for its accession into the European Union.

However, this promises to change now that Lithuania's Ministry of Health has asked the Center for Reproductive Rights and our Lithuanian partner, the Lithuanian Family Planning and Sexual Health Association (LFPSHA), to assist in the drafting of that nation's first reproductive health and rights law. This development is one of the outcomes of the first-ever formal meeting between Lithuanian legislators and policy makers and reproductive rights activists, which was held last December in Vilnius. Dr. Nafis Sadik, former executive director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and current Center for Reproductive Rights board member, and staff attorney Christina Zampas represented the Center for Reproductive Rights at the meeting.

Dr. Nafis Sadik, Center for Reproductive Rights board member, (second from the left), and Christina Zampas, staff attorney, (far right) at a meeting of Lithuanian legislators and policy makers in Vilnius, Lithuania.

"The situation in Lithuania is ripe for the adoption of what would be a landmark reproductive health and rights law for the country," said Zampas. "The conservatives in the Lithuanian Parliament were defeated in elections in late 2000 and that result offers an opportunity to build the legal foundation for the reproductive rights of Lithuanian women."

The meeting resulted in several commitments:

• The Lithuanian health ministry agreed to form a national committee to coordinate the drafting of a reproductive health law.

• A parliamentary group on population and development will be created.

• The health ministry committed to review a 1996 draft law on family health care that was never passed because of conservative opposition.

The chairs of Lithuania's Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family and Social Welfare, the vice-minister of health, health officials and other lawmakers from the country participated in the meeting.

Lithuania currently has few laws addressing reproductive health. Abortion is permitted and regulated only under a ministerial decree. In addition, there is no legislation or policy ensuring access to family planning. In the entire country of 3.7 million people there is only one state-funded family planning clinic. The clinic was reduced to approximately one-tenth its size two years ago.

According to a UNFPA survey, the rate of modern contraceptive prevalence among Lithuanians is just 40%. In addition, contraceptives, such as birth control pills, are expensive. In Lithuania, birth control pills can cost between $2.50 and $5, in a country where the average monthly salary was $270 per month in 1999. The Center for Reproductive Rights publication "Women of the World: East Central Europe" offers more insight into the reproductive health situation of Lithuanian women, as well as other countries in the region.

At the Vilnius meeting, lawmakers expressed concern about Lithuania's low fertility and birth rates, 37 births per 1,000 women. Dr. Sadik quickly pointed out that the fertility rate issue is separate from reproductive rights and that in order to address the low birth rate the government must ask why women and couples are choosing not to have children. This was a distinction that was clearly made at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo.

"The consensus at Cairo rejected the use of demographic targets that focus on increasing or decreasing population-growth rates," said Dr. Sadik. "Instead, it emphasized the need to 'raise the quality of life and wellbeing' of men and women worldwide."

At a press conference held in the Lithuanian Parliament, Dr. Sadik added:

"It is hoped that the universality of sexual and reproductive rights and the urgent need to advance the reproductive health of all Lithuanian people will transcend all political barriers and that law and policy makers from all political parties will be able to work together to protect and advance these rights in Lithuania."

Center for Reproductive Rights Opens Doors to Defenders of Reproductive Rights

Since 1994, the Center for Reproductive Rights has had a proud tradition of providing opportunities for lawyers from all regions of the world to develop their skills as reproductive right advocates.

From Poland to Mexico to Uganda, these visiting attorneys have worked alongside Center for Reproductive Rights staff on a wide range of publications and advocacy efforts. They often come to the Center for Reproductive Rights as fellows sponsored by foundations. These women and men have become leaders in the field of reproductive rights in their own countries.

Urszula Nowakoska came to the Center for Reproductive Rights in 1994 and later returned to Poland to found a leading women's rights organization, called the Women's Rights Center. Steven Harrison, a visiting attorney in 1996 from South Africa, works with the South African government's Department of Health and helped to formulate South Africa's 1996 reproductive health law. Isabel Vericat from Mexico returned home in 1999 after working with the Center for Reproductive Rights' international program staff and founded a legal and policy advocacy organization for reproductive rights, called EPIKEA or Justice with Equity. She has been working on the case of a 14-year-old girl who became pregnant as a result of rape and was prevented from receiving an abortion by local officials and hospital staff.

For more information about the visiting attorney program email info@reprorights.org.

Update: Chile Supreme Court Allows Use of Key EC Ingredient

On December 21, 2001, Chile's Supreme Court authorized the sale of the active ingredient in emergency contraception pills (ECPs). The decision ensures that the use of the ingredient, Levonorgestrel, cannot be banned in Chile.

The Supreme Court decision comes several months after a decision by the Eighth Chamber of the Court of Appeals that had permitted the sale of Levonorgestrel, but banned the drug Postinal, an ECP, produced by Silesia Laboratory. The court rejected the appeal made by Chilean anti-abortion organizations to extend the ban to all products containing the active ingredient.

The Supreme Court decision was adopted unanimously, signaling to the judges of the appeals court that the decision cannot be revised through the appeals process. Postinor 2, produced by Grunenthal Laboratories, is a brand of EC that will not be banned because of this decision. The Health Ministry approved the distribution of this brand of EC after the court had banned Postinal. Future products that contain Levonorgestrel should not be prohibited.

Since September, when Postinor 2 was first marketed, about two thousand units were sold or given to victims of sexual assault by urgent care workers. In other cases pharmacies have distributed the drug with pre-written prescriptions. | |