December 6, 2007
Support the Center now!
|
4 WAYS TO PROTECT ABORTION RIGHTS IN THE U.S.
Anti-choice lawmakers in the U.S. are not wasting any time in setting the stage for a post-Roe v. Wade world. Since 2004, they have introduced an unprecedented 38 abortion bans in 17 states, according to the Center's recently updated What If Roe Fell? report. The goal: to get the Supreme Court to reverse Roe, and, as soon as that happens, wipe out abortion rights in many parts of the country. Here are four ways you can keep that from happening:
1. Educate Yourself
Find out what the abortion laws are in your state and whether your state constitution protects the right to abortion. Share this information with other advocates, family, and friends.
2. Support Freedom of Choice Acts (FOCA)
This pre-emptive legislation would not only prevent further erosion of a woman's right to choose, but also protect reproductive freedoms if Roe is overturned. A federal FOCA has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. Seven states have already enacted FOCAs.
3. Support Measures to Repeal Pre-Roe Abortion Bans
If your state has a pre-Roe ban on the books that has not been declared unconstitutional, support measures to repeal it.
4. Prepare to Oppose New Bans
Build strong coalitions. Gather data on how an abortion ban would hurt women in your state.
|
|
GLOSSARY: BANS-IN-WAITING
A new legal strategy devised by anti-choice forces, these state-level abortion bans are not effective immediately, but instead would go into effect after Roe v. Wade is overturned. Because they are not yet law, they cannot be challenged in court. And because they do not go into effect immediately, they are mistakenly perceived as non-threatening and are hard to mobilize against. Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, and North Dakota have passed bans-in-waiting.
|
|
FINDING FACTS AND TELLING STORIES
For some of the women, years have passed since they were humiliated and abused in Kenya's maternity hospitals. But they still clearly remembered the details, and didn't hold back in describing them. The women were part of a focus group organized by the Center and its partner in Kenya, Federation of Women Lawyers-Kenya, during a fact-finding mission in that country earlier this year. For Elisa Slattery, the Center's Africa Program legal adviser, this focus group brought home the impact fact-finding can have. "What makes it so powerful is that it gives a voice to people who may not be heard otherwise," she said.
The Center has been using fact-finding for more than a decade to complement its legal advocacy, most recently in its reports Failure to Deliver: Violations of Women's Human Rights in Kenyan Health Facilities and Imposing Misery: The Impact of Manila's Contraception Ban on Women and Families.
"Fact-finding lays the groundwork for litigation by helping us identify potential cases and gather supporting evidence for them," said Slattery. "It also raises awareness of a problem that people may not know exists, or only know about anecdotally."
In the U.S., fact-finding could be a valuable advocacy tool, both to supplement litigation efforts and to advance rights and arguments that have not yet been recognized by domestic courts, such as the right to health care. "On many issues, fact-finding may be an important first step for educating the public, legislators, and policy analysts about human rights violations in the U.S.," said Bonnie Scott Jones, a senior attorney at the Center. "It's a very persuasive way of showing the real impact of government policies on individual people." The Domestic Legal Program is currently assessing a number of potential fact-finding missions to pursue in the U.S.
|
|
Q AND A: STEPHANIE TOTI
Center staff attorney Stephanie Toti made her first argument before an appellate court in November. The case, Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Herring, is a challenge to Virginia's so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban that the Fourth Circuit held unconstitutional in 2005. In light of its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding a similar ban at the federal level, the Supreme Court ordered the Fourth Circuit to reconsider its 2005 ruling.
Q: How did the federal abortion ban change the Center's legal strategy from the last time it argued against Virginia's ban?
A: Previously, we focused on the Virginia statute's lack of a health exception. But in Gonzales v. Carhart the Supreme Court ruled that a health exception is not necessary when documented medical disagreement exists about whether a statute's prohibition would ever impose significant health risks on women. Given the recent proliferation of junk science concerning women's health, it would be very difficult for us to overcome the medical disagreement standard. Therefore, we decided to focus this time on how Virginia's ban is broader than the federal law. We argued that it prohibits not only the intentional intact dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure already banned by the federal abortion ban, but also accidental intact D&Es and certain non-intact D&E procedures. The Virginia statute is worded in such a way that even a physician completing a miscarriage could face criminal liability.
Q: What would be the impact of each possible ruling by the Fourth Circuit?
A: If the statute is upheld in its entirety, it could dissuade many Virginia physicians from performing second-trimester abortions or force them to resort to older methods that are less safe than D&E. The court could also strike down the law in part so that it's the same as the federal ban. That outcome would at least maintain the status quo. If the statute is overturned, physicians would still be subject to the federal abortion ban. However, that ruling would send an important message to states that the courts aren't going to allow them to increase the scope of the federal statute.
|
|
GETTING THE EU TO PUT THE HEAT ON CROATIA
The officials from the European Commission were skeptical. Christina Zampas, the Center's senior legal adviser for Europe, had just asked them to take Croatia to task over its biased and inaccurate sex education programs. Croatia is an official candidate for membership in the European Union (EU), and the Commission-which oversees EU enlargement-wields a great deal of influence over the country as a result. The Commission does not, however, usually get involved in education issues.
Undeterred, Zampas and Sanja Cesar, from the Center's Croatian partner, the Center for Education and Counseling of Women CESI, traveled to Brussels in early September to meet with key members of the Commission.
According to Zampas, "the EU may not deal with curricula issues, but it does require candidate countries to demonstrate respect for the rule of law and for domestic human rights bodies." She and Cesar informed EU officials that the Croatian government had ignored opinions from its gender equality and children's rights ombudspersons, both of whom had concluded that the country's sex education programs violated domestic as well as international law. As equal opportunity and health are areas of concern for the EU, Zampas argued the programs promoted gender stereotypes that undermined women's equality in the workplace, and that the programs threatened region-wide efforts to fight HIV/AIDS by discouraging the use of condoms.
By the time Zampas left Brussels, Commission officials indicated they would broach these concerns with Croatia. Zampas and Cesar convinced Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to follow up and ensure the Commission does so. Meanwhile, over 20 MEPs have signed a letter asking Croatian authorities to reconsider their support for the programs based on the ombudspersons' opinions.
|
|
