An Israeli has just been named as the UN Security Council's top lawyer for counterterrorism.

The United Nations has promoted a former Israeli government attorney to a job as the Security Council’s top counterterrorism lawyer, making him the only Israeli national serving in a senior security position within the U.N. Secretariat, Israeli and U.N. officials said Tuesday.

David Scharia has been appointed legal coordinator for the Counter-Terrorism Committee executive directorate, where he will oversee a team of 12 international legal experts who advise the 15-nation Security Council on its counterterrorism efforts.

The appointment would not typically be notable were it not so uncommon for Israelis to reach the upper levels at the United Nations. The organization helped give birth to Israel, but the recent history between the country and the U.N. has been contentious.

Read more at Washington Post

A tragic bombing in Bulgaria appears to have targeted Israeli tourists.

At least seven people were killed in an attack on an Israeli tour bus at the Sarafovo International Airport in the Bulgarian vacation city of Bourgas on Wednesday afternoon. Some news reports put the number of fatalities as high as 10.

According to initial reports, a bomb was placed in the bus, detonating to murderous effect. The impact was so strong as to damage two other buses nearby, also with Israelis on board. Some initial reports said the attack was a suicide bombing, but the preliminary investigation pointed to the bomb having been placed in a suitcase in the vehicle’s luggage hold.

Nearly all the casualties were understood to be Israelis. A Bulgarian tour guide was also said to be among the dead.

Read more at Times of Israel

Yet another bill has been introduced in the House, purportedly for labor, health and education spending, aimed specifically at restricting women's reproductive health across the board.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) released a labor, health and education spending bill on Tuesday that would defund Planned Parenthood and Title X, block the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, allow any employer to deny women birth control coverage under the ACA for "moral reasons" and increase spending for abstinence-only education.

Specifically, the bill prevents federal dollars from flowing to Planned Parenthood clinics until the family planning provider can certify that it no longer offers abortions, even though Planned Parenthood only uses federal money for non-abortion services.

The legislation also states that none of its funds can be used to carry out the Title X family planning program or be used to "implement, administer, enforce, or further the provisions" of the Affordable Care Act.

Read more at Huffington Post

The United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which is meant to approve and expand military cooperation between the two countries, easily passed both houses of Congress on Tuesday and now awaits President Barack Obama's signature.

The House version of the bill was passed in May. The Senate version, which was passed in June, extended the authority of the US to store weapons in Israel that could be used by Israel in case of emergency, which required an additional House vote.

AIPAC commended the House’s passage of the bill, saying in a statement, "The United States benefits greatly through enhanced cooperation with Israel. This bipartisan bill recommends new avenues to grow and strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship in the fields of missile defense, homeland security, energy, intelligence, and cyber-security."

Read more at Haaretz

A lawsuit is challenging Arizona's new abortion law which bans abortions effectively 18 weeks after the woman's last menstrual cycle has been filed.  Many have said this law essentially says a woman is pregnant 2 weeks prior to possible fertilization.

A group of doctors and women’s rights advocates challenged Arizona’s new abortion limits in a federal lawsuit on Thursday, claiming that they violate the Constitution and pose a threat to women’s health.

The law, set to take effect on Aug. 2, prohibits abortions once 20 weeks have passed since a woman’s last menstrual period, which is about 18 weeks after fertilization. This is the earliest deadline set by any state and is weeks earlier than the threshold set by the Supreme Court.

In Roe v. Wade and related decisions, the court ruled that women have a right to abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, often about 24 weeks, and that any ban on later abortions must allow exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother.

Read more at New York Times

The Guttmacher Institute has released its mid-year analysis for 2012 on state trends in reproductive health laws and policies and the news is still not good for women's reproductive rights.

In the first half of 2012, states enacted 95 new provisions related to reproductive health and rights. Of the 44 state legislatures that have convened this year, only seven currently remain in session. As was the case in 2011, issues related to abortion, family planning funding and sex education once again were significant flash-points in many legislatures (click here for a more detailed version).

Abortion

So far this year, states have enacted 39 new restrictions on access to abortion. Although this is significantly lower than the record-breaking 80 restrictions that had been enacted by this point in 2011, it is nonetheless a higher number of restrictions than in any year prior to 2011. Most of the 39 new restrictions have been enacted in states that are generally hostile to abortion. For example, 14 of the new restrictions have been enacted in just three states—Arizona, Louisiana and South Dakota—that already had at least five such restrictions on the books. Fully 55% of U.S. women of reproductive age now live in one of the 26 states considered hostile to abortion rights.

This year is shaping up to be similar to last year in terms of the number of abortion restrictions that have either been introduced or approved by a state legislative chamber. What distinguishes 2012 from 2011, however, is that a lower proportion of the restrictions that were passed by one legislative body have become law—30% of the abortion restrictions passed by one chamber so far this year have been enacted, a significantly lower proportion than the 51% that had been signed into law by this point in 2011.

Read more at RH Reality Check

A Mississippi District Judge will decide if the state's only remaining public clinic will be allowed to continue to provide abortion services.

District Judge Daniel Jordan will decide today whether or not to allow the state of Mississippi to enforce its new law that would close down Mississippi's only public clinic to provide abortions by requiring doctors in the clinic to have admitting privileges to a local hospital. In determining the case, Jordan will have to weigh the state's allegations that it is trying to protect the health of women from unsafe conditions versus a woman's constitutional right to access an abortion. Mississippi lawmakers and anti-choice advocates have upped their accusations of potential health risks and their desire to "protect women" as they discuss the bill and present their evidence, but will that be enough to override a decade's worth of public comment about their desire to make the state abortion-free by any means available?

The crux of the "safety issue" is the idea that Jackson Women's Health Organization clinic owner Diane Derzis runs an operation that disregards safety standards, leading to a likelihood of potential abortion complications, and that requiring admitting privileges for the clinic's doctors is a logical move should a complication require emergency follow up. To support their argument, the state uses testimony from known anti-abortion researchers such as John Thorp, Jr., M.D, who researched "physical harm" allegedly caused by having abortions, and James Anderson, chairman of Virginia Physicians for Life.

Also being used to support the idea of unsafe conditions in the clinic is a lawsuit by former clinic provider Dr. Joseph Booker, who filed for wrongful termination after he was let go from the organization in 2010. The lawsuit claims primarily that Derzis created a hostile work environment and made staffing and care choices based on racial bias and an attempt to financially profit as much as she could once she took over ownership of JWHO. But the defense is using allegations that she approved allowing the use of RU-486 for any woman in the state who wanted a medication termination, rather than just local women, compromising their health due to a potential lack of access to follow up care in case of complications.

Read more at RH Reality Check

As we observe World Refugee Day this month, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prossor, looks back at the over 850,000 Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries following the founding of Israel and whose stories are virtually unknown.

This month the United Nations marks World Refugee Day, a star-studded, multimedia campaign to raise awareness about the plight of refugees. Celebrities like Angelina Jolie have cut video spots that will be broadcast on television and spread on social media. Millions will participate in events spanning five continents, from concerts in London to a film festival in Beirut to a bike race in Ecuador. Yet mention of one group of refugees will be noticeably absent from any of these activities: the 850,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries during the past six decades. Their history remains one of the 20th century's greatest untold stories.

At the end of World War II, 850,000 Jews lived in Arab countries. Just 8,500 remain today. Their departure was no accident. After Arab leaders failed to annihilate Israel militarily in 1948, they launched a war of terror, incitement, and expulsion to decimate their own ancient Jewish communities.

In Iraq Jewish businessman Shafiq Adas, then the country's wealthiest citizen, was immediately arrested on trumped-up charges and publicly lynched. This was followed by bombings targeting Jewish institutions, arbitrary arrests of Jewish leaders, and massive government seizures of property. Within years virtually all of Iraq's 2,500-year-old Jewish community had fled, emptying the country of many of its greatest artists, musicians, and businessmen.

Read more at Huffington Post

The Presbyterian Church has decided against divestment from companies doing business with Israel, but it was by a very narrow margin.

By the narrowest of margins, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA defeated a resolution calling for divestment from companies that do business with Israel’s security forces. The 333-331 vote was the closest the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement has come to getting a major American Christian denomination to endorse such a measure. The close vote is a victory of sorts for the Jewish groups, such as the Jewish Council on Public Affairs (JCPA) that lobbied hard to defeat the motion. But the narrow margin is a virtual guarantee that divestment advocates will be back next year with expectations of victory at the Presbyterian conclave as well as at other gatherings of mainline Protestant groups.

Though there is little support for Israel divestment among the rank and file members of Presbyterian congregations, there is no denying the growing appeal among church activists for BDS proposals. The defeat of BDS this week may show that a narrow majority of Presbyterian delegates still understands that a vote for such a resolution involves the church in what amounts to an economic war against the Jewish state and a potential break in relations with American Jews. But the close call may indicate that support for anti-Zionism among liberal Protestant groups such as the Presbyterians is on the rise and it may only be a matter of time before they prevail.

The three companies targeted for divestment in the vote were Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett-Packard. Though church activists considered the resolution to be distinct from a broad BDS vote, even this proposal betrayed the malevolent nature of the anti-Israel movement. Motorola and Hewlett-Packard produce devices that help the Israel Defense Forces monitor security checkpoints for terrorist explosives and other dangers. Caterpillar vehicles help construct Israel’s defense barrier that keeps out suicide bombers as well as demolish illegal construction and structures that shield terrorist activities.

Read more at Commentary Magazine

An Indiana law aimed at preventing women from using Medicaid benefits for reproductive medical care at Planned Parenthood has been found in violation of federal laws.

A controversial Indiana law that would keep low-income women from using federal Medicaid benefits to receive any kind of reproductive medical care from Planned Parenthood is unacceptable because it denies women the freedom to choose their health care providers, according to a federal hearing officer.

In June 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of the Department of Health and Human Services ruled the state law, which would alter the way Medicaid is run in Indiana, violates federal laws, making it unacceptable.

The state has argued the law, HEA 1210, simply intended to block Medicaid money from going toward abortions, and filed an administrative appeal to CMS to reassess the ruling.

Read more at CNN

An interesting idea from The Atlantic.  What do you think?

Oral contraceptives are some of the safest and most effective drugs on the market. Yet they remain irrationally difficult for many women to obtain, and not just those working at Catholic institutions. Most doctors prescribe the pill for one year, requiring women to receive full pelvic exams in order to re-up; on top of that, many health insurers dole out pills only one month at a time. These barriers can thwart consistent use, increasing the odds of unintended pregnancy—and abortion.

There’s a simple solution here: sell the pill over the counter. Oral contraceptives have long met most of the FDA’s over-the-counter criteria, and recent research has shown that annual Pap smears not only are superfluous, but often lead to false positives and expensive follow-up testing. Reserving the pill as a reward for a regular checkup with a gynecologist is no longer just condescending—it’s also medically unsound.

Read more at The Atlantic

The House is set to vote on a controversal bill regarding gender-selective abortions that would criminalize the procedure and result in up to 5 year prison sentences for providers.

The debate over a bill that would ban sex-selective abortions became red-hot Thursday in the run-up to an expected floor vote, as Republicans used the vote to try to shame Democrats who might oppose it. 

 

The proposal would make it a federal crime to carry out an abortion based on the gender of the fetus. The measure takes aim at the aborting of female fetuses, a practice more common to countries such India and China, where there is a strong preference for sons, but which is also thought to take place in the U.S. 

 

The White House and Democratic lawmakers oppose the bill out of concern that it could end up subjecting doctors to strict punishment, suggesting the law would be difficult to follow. 

 

The House is set to vote this week on HR 3541, "The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PREDNA)," which will criminalize abortions performed based on the gender of the fetus.

Before the clock runs out on another Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, anti-choice legislators have decided to send the Asian American community home with a parting gift. This Wednesday, HR 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) will be put to a vote in the House. PRENDA would ban abortions sought based on the sex of a fetus, threaten doctors with up to five years in prison for performing such a procedure, and even require doctors and nurses to report women whom they suspect are seeking an abortion for these reasons. While the bill is cloaked in the language of civil rights for women, this bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Rather than lifting the status of women, this bill is nothing more than another hypocritical attempt to ban abortions in this country – this time using Asian women as the excuse.

 

In my testimony at the subcommittee hearing on this bill in December, I referred to this bill as “PRENDA the pretenda.” The sponsors of this bill are using the guise of “ending discrimination against female babies,” which sounds like a good cause, in order to ban abortion for the very people it pretends to protect: Asian American women. We recognize that this is simply a particularly demeaning way for anti-choice legislators to limit abortion access.

 

The hypocrisy of the bills sponsors becomes even more clear when we look at their voting records. They have never supported the numerous measures that would improve the living conditions of women and people of color -- like the Voting Rights Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Violence Against Women Act.

Read more at RH Reality Check

Originally called the "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Non-discrimination Act," the House is voting tomorrow on a HR 3541, which has nothing to do with civil rights, but is instead bans gender-based abortions. 

The House will vote this week on legislation imposing criminal penalties on anyone performing an abortion based on the sex of the child, but the measure runs the risk of failing on the floor because of how the GOP is calling it up.

 

Republican leaders have scheduled a vote on H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), under a suspension of House rules, which will require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Suspension votes are usually reserved for non-controversial bills, but Republican leaders have occasionally used the process for bills that Democrats oppose, and the PRENDA bill appears to be one of those.

 

Democratic opposition to the bill began with its original name, the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-discrimination Act. Democrats argued in February that while the bill was named after these civil rights heroes, it has nothing to do with protecting civil rights.

Read more at The Hill.

In an new amendment the the foreign appropriations bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved wording to distinguish between Palestinian refugees who were alive in 1948 and those who are decendents.

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee approved language that would distinguish between Palestinian refugees alive in 1948 and their descendants.

The amendment to the foreign appropriations bill, initiated by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and passed Thursday, requires the State Department to report within a year on approximately how many people are receiving assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency "whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who were displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict; and who are descendants" of those people.

Should the Obama or any subsequent administration heed the new requirement, it would deliver a diplomatic blow to Palestinian efforts to leverage their refugee status in peace talks with Israel by aligning U.S. policy with Israel on the matter.

Read more at JTA