On September 23, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that an anti-abortion protestor had no right to use the state’s false advertising law to harass North Dakota’s only abortion clini, the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo. The decision maintains a lower court ruling, which recognized that there is no established link between abortion and breast cancer.
In 1999, the Red River Women’s Clinic began distributing brochures debunking the link between abortion and breast cancer. The brochures were distributed in response to an anti-choice campaign that attempted to scare women by linking abortion with an increased risk of breast cancer. Amy Jo Kjolsrud (nee Mattson), at the request of anti-choice attorneys, sued the clinic arguing that the brochures were false and misleading. At the time she brought the lawsuit, Kjolsrud had not personally read the brochure.
The Center for Reproductive Rights represented the Red River Women’s Clinic in the case. After a three-day trial in March 2002, a lower court judge ruled that the brochures were truthful and correct. The judge said it reasonable for the clinic to rely on statements from leading cancer organizations, such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI), that refute a link between abortion and breast cancer. Kjolsrud appealed the lower court’s decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the plaintiff, whose only connection to the clinic was as a protestor, had no legal right to sue the clinic under North Dakota’s consumer protection law. Furthermore, the plaintiff is responsible for reimbursing the clinic $30,000 in legal costs that were awarded by the lower court.
"Anti-abortion extremists should think twice before suing abortion providers over frivolous claims, such as the debunked abortion-breast cancer link," said Linda Rosenthal, staff attorney for the Center and lead counsel for the defendants.
The largest and most reliable study in this field examined data on more than a million Danish women, collected over several decades, and determined conclusively that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer.
As recently as February 2003, the NCI convened approximately one hundred leading scientists and advocates in the field of breast cancer research to review the body of evidence on the alleged link between abortion and breast cancer. The group stated unequivocally that induced and spontaneous abortions do not lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. The experts declared that their conclusion was "well established" by scientific evidence—the strongest possible statement that the NCI could issue.
On September 3, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals refused to overturn the state’s ban on Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions. The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the ban as part of our efforts to broaden access to abortion for low-income women throughout the country.
The Center has alleged that Florida’s law constitutes sex discrimination because it places no funding restrictions on medically necessary health services for men.
"Florida is making women second-class citizens by providing poor men with Viagra but denying abortions to women who need them to prevent serious health problems," said Bonnie Scott Jones, staff attorney with the Center and lead counsel on the case. "The Court’s decision treats low-income women differently than low-income men, and fails to provide these women with needed medical care."
For Monica Navarrete, one of the Center’s clients in the Florida case, the decision confirms the state’s willingness to violate women’s rights and sideline their health. Navarette was denied Medicaid funding for an abortion even though doctors told her that the medication she takes to control epileptic seizures posed a serious threat to the health of her fetus. "The law claims you have the right to an abortion," said Navarrete. "But in my case, when it came right down to it, I had to prove why I should be given the right."
Currently, 17 states cover all medically necessary abortions in their Medicaid programs; courts in New Mexico and Connecticut have specifically ruled that denying Medicaid coverage for low-income women’s abortions is a form of sex discrimination.
The Center for Reproductive Rights has joined a diverse coalition of groups opposing challenges to contraceptive coverage laws in two states. Catholic Charities is waging the challenge to these laws in New York and California because the organization does not qualify for an exemption under the statutes’ definition of "religious employers." In the California challenge, the group claims that it faces the dilemma of "either refusing to provide health insurance coverage for its employees or facilitating the sin of contraception."
"Contraceptive equity laws are crucial to protecting women’s reproductive rights," said Bebe J. Anderson, a staff attorney with the Center. "Attempts to exclude more employees from the protections afforded by these laws undermine their effectiveness. That is ultimately the goal of the challenges by Catholic Charities."
The Center has filed legal briefs supporting the contraceptive coverage laws of both New York and California. The Center’s brief in the New York case, which is currently pending before the New York Supreme Court in Albany, was prepared in collaboration with a large group of organizations including the American Jewish Congress and the League of Women Voters.
In California, where the case is before the state’s Supreme Court, the Center worked with groups such as the California Medical Society and the California Planned Parenthood Education Fund.
previous