May 16, 2007                                             Support the Center now! U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST WOMEN'S HEALTH In upholding the Federal Abortion Ban on April 18, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, effectively overturned 30 years of precedent. The Court's ruling, which Justice Ginsberg's dissent calls "alarming," outlaws a procedure that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found to be medically necessary in certain cases, and does not contain a health exception. Just six years ago, the Court struck down an almost identical ban because it lacked such an exception; as Justice Ginsburg noted, the only difference since then is the changed composition of the Court. The Los Angeles Times was just one of many news outlets that quoted Nancy Northup, president of the Center, saying: "This court believes that members of Congress—not doctors—are in the best position to make medical decisions for their patients." Read more > > CENTER HAILS MEXICO CITY DECISION ON ABORTION Mexico City's legislature voted on April 24 to make abortion legal in the first trimester. "In passing this law, the legislature has recognized the pressing need to address abortion as a public health issue," said Lilian Sepúlveda, the Center's legal advisor for Latin America. The vote follows recent progress in the region, including legal victories in K.L. v. Peru and Paulina v. Mexico, cases brought by the Center and its partners. According to Mexican lawyer, Adriana Ortega Ortiz, "The Paulina case was of paramount importance in changing the debate about abortion rights in Mexico. Subsequent legal developments such as the reform of the Mexico City Penal Code can [all] be attributed to the awareness that the Paulina case raised among public and private actors." The Center's partner in the Paulina case, Grupo de Información en Reprodución Eligida (GIRE), was instrumental in advocating and organizing the change in the Mexico City abortion law. Read more > > DEFENDING WOMEN'S HEALTH AT THE STATE LEVEL Responding to an increasingly hostile climate for reproductive rights, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has moved to update the state's abortion law. The Center, working in coalition with state pro-choice advocates, drafted the proposal on which the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act is based. The legislation would, in the Governor's words, "enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade into New York State law." Women in states with such Freedom of Choice Acts would continue to enjoy a level of protection for reproductive freedom even if federal constitutional protections were further eroded or abolished. Seven states, from Hawaii to Maine, currently have such laws. The Center was able to provide legal expertise and a national perspective, having authored the 2004 report What If Roe Fell?. The second edition of this report will be published this summer. Read the bill > > POLAND REJECTS ANTI-CHOICE AMENDMENTS In a victory for women's rights, the Polish Parliament rejected several constitutional amendments that had the potential to ban abortion in all circumstances. The amendments sought to extend the Constitution's protection of life and human dignity to the moment of conception. Poland's current law is already highly restrictive, permitting abortion only to save a woman's health and life, in cases of fetal impairment, and when the pregnancy results from a crime. Working in close collaboration with the Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning, the Center helped demonstrate to key policymakers that the proposed amendments threatened women's human rights under international law. Read more > > OKLAHOMA BATTLES OVER ABORTION RESTRICTIONS In the waning days of its legislative session, Oklahoma lawmakers suspended legislative deadlines to push a restrictive abortion bill similar to the one just vetoed by the state's governor, Brad Henry. The bill vetoed by Governor Henry banned state-funded abortions except in cases in which the woman's life was at risk, made it more difficult for minors to have abortions, and imposed extensive and intrusive reporting requirements. The new bill contains the same restrictions but adds exceptions to allow public funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest. It has already passed the House and now goes to the Senate. In his veto of the original bill, the governor noted that, if enacted, the restrictions would "compromise healthcare in our state" by interfering with the doctor-patient relationship and dramatically reducing access to abortion. The new legislation does little to change that assessment. More on state legislative activity > >