Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.

 

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

 

The 18th week bill includes a new definition for when pregnancy begins. All of the bills passed the Senate and now head to Gov. Jan Brewer (R) for her signature or veto. Passage of the late-term abortion bill would give Arizona the earliest definition of late-term abortion in the country; most states use 20 weeks as a definition.

Despite wide-spread and vocal opposition, including two walk-outs by women legislators, and after one legislator compared pregnant women to pregnant cattle, Georgia has passed bill limiting abortions to 20 weeks.

State Rep. Doug McKillip, R-Athens, capped off a busy and sometimes contentious legislative session late Thursday by bringing up what may have been the most controversial bill of the year.

 

As the clock approached midnight, McKillip shepherded through a revised version of his bill limiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy rather than the current 26 weeks, legislation that upset female Democratic lawmakers so much they protested by wrapping themselves in police tape.

 

The bill appeared dead earlier in the week after the Senate passed a watered-down version that House leaders rejected, but Republicans in both chambers came to an agreement.

Citing the right of parents to be involved in their children's lives, the House Judiciary Committee has passed a bill that would make it a crime for anyone but a parent to accompany a minor across state lines to have an abortion and would impose a prison sentence on any doctor who performed an abortion on an out-of-state minor without a parent present.  This bill now goes to the House floor where is has 158 cosponsors and a companion bill awaiting in the Senate.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 20-13 on Tuesday to advance a bill that would make it a crime for anyone but a parent to accompany a young woman outside of her home state to have an abortion. The committee rejected several proposed amendments that would have provided exceptions for victims of rape or incest, women facing threats to their health, and grandparents and older siblings trying to accompany their family members to abortion clinics.

 

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), imposes a prison term of up to a year for a doctor who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor that is not accompanied by a parent. It has 158 cosponsors in the House and a companion bill in the Senate.

 

"This legislation is based on common-sense," Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement on Monday. "Parents have the right to be involved in their children’s lives."

 

Opponents of the bill argue that it fails to consider the extenuating circumstances in which a teen would turn to another adult -- such her grandmother or adult sister -- for support, and could force young women to instead turn to unsafe alternatives to terminating her pregnancy.

Read more at Huffington Post

Thursday, March 8 is International Women's Day, and Republicans in Congress are celebrating by debating a new bill that would restrict abortion rights.

 

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on Thursday to discuss the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), which is sponsored by two Florida Republicans, Marco Rubio in the Senate and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the House. The bill would make it illegal for anyone but a parent to accompany a young woman across state lines to seek an abortion -- even if her parents are absent or abusive.

 

Perhaps more significantly, the bill is the latest in a long series of attempts by Republican lawmakers to criminalize physicians who perform abortions, to chip away at women's constitutionally protected right to decide when and if they will have a child and to otherwise politicize women's health.

In response to recently proposed legislation aimed at stating life begins at conception and others requiring invasive testing to make sure women "know the facts" prior to having an abortion, several state lawmakers around the country have introduced bills to ensure that men are informed of importance of medical testing for erectile dysfunction and the dangers its treatment can pose, as well as legislation requiring testing prior to a vasectomy. 

On Tuesday, Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) will introduce a bill aimed at cracking down on prescription drugs like Viagra that treat erectile dysfunction. Turner’s legislation would make men jump through certain hoops — such as psychological screenings — before they could obtain the meds. The bill follows FDA recommendations to determine the underlying causes of erectile dysfunction — but that’s certainly not the only reason Turner is putting the measure forward.

“All across the country, including in Ohio, I thought since men are certainly paying great attention to women’s health that we should definitely return the favor,” Turner told TPM. Her bill is one of several pieces of legislation offered over the past several weeks by women lawmakers eager to prove a point about the raging contraception debate.  Their bills seek to regulate men’s sexual health, from Viagra to vasectomies, just as Republican-led state governments and Congress have zeroed in on access to abortion and family planning care.

 

Turner’s bill mimics language found in Ohio’s so-called Heartbeat Bill, which passed the Ohio state House and is now pending in the Senate. The bill would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, sometimes as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Turner’s bill, she says, offers men a taste of their own medicine — it would require physicians to inform patients in writing of the risks involved in taking erectile dysfunction drugs and requires men to sign a document acknowledging the risks, just like the anti-abortion bill does.

Read more at Talking Points Memo

Police, some in riot gear, arrested 30 peaceful protestors on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol this weekend.  Protestors had gathered in response to recent anti-abortion legislation.

You might think that the right wing in this country was getting the message that women will no longer stand for legal, verbal, and physical abuse and harassment, especially by elected officials.  You would especially think that would be the case in Virginia where former Vice Presidential aspirant Governor Bob McDonnell, who is contemplating signing into law a forced ultrasound bill after doing women a "favor" and taking out the forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds initially required, has been widely pilloried.  You would also think the right-wing would be cautious after a week in which the seemingly untouchable Rush Limbaugh has, as of this writing, lost seven corporate sponsors over his debasing remarks about Sandra Fluke.

But you would be wrong.

Because, you see, women in this country are so dangerous, their sense of entitlement as citizens so incredibly threatening to the peace of the republic that state police in riot gear were sent to remove peaceful protestors this past weekend. According to a news article in the Richmond independent news source Style Weekly:

Read more at RH Reality Check

In a vote of 51-48, the Senate narrowly defeated the Blunt Amendment, which if passed would have allowed employers to deny insurance coverage for any medical procedure or medication on the basis of religious or moral objection.

By a vote of 51-48, the Senate agreed to table a Republican amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would have empowered employers to deny coverage of health services to their employees on the basis of personal moral objections. The measure represented the GOP’s response to President Obama’s rule requiring employers to provide contraception and other preventive health services as part of their health insurance plans. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) — who announced her retirement earlier this week — was the only Republican to join Democrats in “tabling” the amendment, while three Democrats, Sens. Ben Nelson (NE), Joe Manchin (WV), and Bob Casey (PA) voted to preserve it.

During the nearly two hour debate, Republicans attempted to frame the issue as an attempt to prevent religious organizations from the Obama administration’s overreach and, despite supporting efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, maintained that women could obtain birth control from public sources. Blunt took to the floor to argue that employers would be discouraged from denying certain treatments by existing state mandates and a provision in the amendment requiring employers to replace the benefit with another service.

Read more at Alternet

An LA Times Editorial calls on Rep. Darrell Issa and other politicians to get back to governing and stop playing politics with their power, their committees and women's health.

When Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, convened a hearing Thursday on religious freedom and the mandate that health insurers cover contraception, he ignited a firestorm of protest before he even started.

The first of two panels he assembled was all male — something that a Democratic congresswoman on the committee noted immediately and not favorably, given thatwomen's healthwas at the heart of what was being discussed. A photo of the panel of clergymen at a table before the committee went viral on Facebook.

The Democrats who made political hay of Issa's choice of witnesses were right; surely it says something troubling that the committee didn't bother to find a single woman to testify on its first panel. (There were two on the second.) But it is at least as troubling that there was no one at all — male or female, on either panel — called to testify in support of the Obama administration's proposed mandate.

Read more at the Los Angeles Times

A new chart shows the extreme positions of the GOP Presidential candidates when it comes to women's health care.  It's not just about contraception and abortion.

Conservatives have launched an all-out assault on affordable access to birth control, but their war on women’s health care doesn’t stop at contraception. We’ve compiled a chart showing the extreme positions on women’s health care issues that the four remaining GOP presidential contenders have taken. To a man, they oppose everything from no-cost coverage for cancer screenings to the elimination of domestic violence as a preexisting condition.

Read more at Think Progress

A new poll by CBS/New York Times shows that a majority of Americans, including Catholics, support the coverge of birth control in health insurance plans.

The new CBS/New York Times poll shows that the White House’s fight over contraception in health insurance plans is in fact on the winning side with the public — and among Catholics, too, the group whose church leadership has mounted the mount vigorous campaign against it.

The poll of American adults asked: “Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?” The answer was: Support 66%, Oppose 26%.

A follow-up question then specifically brought the religious element into the equation: “And what about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university — do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that their health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees?”

Read more at Talking Points Memo

Congresswoman Nita Lowey responds to critics who say the administration was wrong to protect access to contraception for millions of women under the Affordable Care Act.

Read more at Huffington Post

Coinciding with the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, House Republicans have introduced three new bills to restrict access to abortion.

Read more at The Hill Blog

What does Pro-Choice really mean?  It is so much more than access to abortions, and we need to keep stressing that.

With the anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Jan. 22, the words "pro-choice" seem to be everywhere. You’ll hear them in impassioned speeches, and see them on colorful posters, on blogs and in tweets.  And when you do, you’ll probably think of abortion.

That’s understandable. And undeniably, the right to choose an abortion is something that must be protected.  A woman chooses abortion for the most intimate, personal reasons, and no one else is qualified to make that choice.

But abortion is far from the only choice a woman makes about her reproductive health. And if you really think about it, why wait to defend those reproductive health choices until she is at the door of an abortion clinic?

Read more at RH Reality Check

In a rulling last week, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that women must be have an ultrasound prior to an abortion, and doctor must describe what the ultrasound shows.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling last week, pretty much says that women are idiots and that Texas can dragoon doctors into becoming ideological tools.

Ultimately, you can thank the state Legislature, which last year passed a bill requiring doctors to describe sonogram images to a woman before an abortion — an effort to get women to change their minds about ending pregnancies. But the 5th Circuit is holding up its end.

Earlier, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks imposed a preliminary injunction on that law in August, finding it probable that — in forcing doctors into medically unnecessary speech and women to listen — First Amendment protections are breached.

Read more at MySanAntonio.com

Appeals court has ruled Texas may enforce a law requiring mandatory sonograms for women seeking an abortion.

A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling that signaled the judges believe the law is constitutional.

When the state will begin enforcing the law was not immediately clear. The group that brought the case, the Center for Reproductive Rights, is weighing how to proceed and has 14 days to ask for a rehearing of the case. If there are no appeals by then, the court would likely allow the state to begin enforcing the law.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a temporary order against enforcing the law and went further to advise U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks how he should ultimately rule in the case. Chief Judge Edith H. Jones used her opinion to systematically dismantle the argument that the Texas law infringes on the free speech rights of doctors and patients, the key argument against the law.

Read more at ABCNews.com