By Andrew

The past week has brought us some exciting news from Congress, but also a reminder of the threat the looming “fiscal cliff” could pose to women’s health. Before diving into those stories, here’s a quick tally of support for women’s health in the first session 113th Congress beginning in January 2013.

As a result of the 2012 election, the U.S. Senate now has 46 Senators who have voted to support women’s health 100% of the time and 43 who have consistently opposed measures that protect women’s health. The remaining 11 Senators have records of variable support for women’s health and will certainly play a key role in swaying the outcome of new legislation. Meanwhile, the number of Representatives who have voted to support women’s health 100% of the time rose from 158 in the last Congress to 173. Despite this impressive gain, advocates for reproductive freedom will face 228 Representatives who have consistently voted to oppose women’s health. However, even with a challenging landscape in the current 112th Congress, we’ve seen two great pieces of legislation take root in Congress recently.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s (D – N.H.) amendment to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act would require federal insurance providers to cover abortion procedures for women in the military in the cases of rape and incest, among other reproductive healthcare services. Currently, servicewomen must carry the full financial cost of an abortion, with no insurance coverage unless their life is in jeopardy. Last Tuesday, the Senate unanimously approved the legislation that would expand coverage to include abortion in cases of rape and incest. Before enactment, though, the Senate version must be merged with the House version, which lacks an amendment like Shaheen’s. Nonetheless, preliminary analysis indicates that the House will most likely include Shaheen’s amendment in the final legislation.

In another example of bipartisan efforts, several members of Congress have crafted legislation designed to enhance justice in rape cases. The Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry (SAFER) Act provides law enforcement agencies with funds to reduce their backlogged rape kits. Nearly 400,000 rapes kits remain untested, contributing to the fact that in the United States there is only a 24% arrest rate for this crime and just 6% of rapists will ever be sent to jail. Statistics show that 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. The cornerstone of addressing the trauma of this crime is being able to hold perpetrators accountable – the SAFER Act will better equip law enforcement officials to process rape kits in their possession, allowing rapists to be brought to justice faster.

The Shaheen amendment and SAFER Act are two bright spots in our current legislative session, which is becoming increasingly worrisome as we approach the January 2 “fiscal cliff.” Automatic budget cuts will occur on this date as a consequence of Congress not agreeing on a way to reduce the budget deficit by that time. These cuts will eliminate $500 million from the defense budget, as well as $500 million from domestic programs. Many of these affected programs directly benefit women’s health and some of those that may be drastically cut because of the political gridlock include: the Maternal and Child Health block grant, Title X Family Planning funds, the Child Care and Development block grant, food stamp funds, and Pell education grants. Women, particularly low-income women, stand to lose the most if Congress fails to act to prevent this economic crisis.

Still, we must continue to push forward and keep women’s health our priority. We will hold Congress and President Obama accountable to making it their priority as well during the 2013 Fiscal year. Their first opportunity to protect women’s health will be to protect the federal funding to domestic programs that will be automatically eliminated unless Congress reaches a budget agreement by January 2. 

In the meantime, we encourage advocates for reproductive freedom to use online social media to spread the news about what’s happening in Congress. First on the agenda is the Shaheen amendment, and supporters are urged to use the hashtags #ShaheenAmdt, #NDAA, and #equality4servicewomen to increase awareness of this pivotal piece of legislation.  You can also encourage your social media networks to educate others about what’s at stake with the “fiscal cliff” as we approach the deadline by following the hashtags #fiscalcliff and #my2k.  Please help us spread the word.

By Andrew

People will be analyzing the Nov. 6th election for months, if not years, to come. Many already say President Obama won re-election in great part due to his support of a woman’s ability to make her own personal medical decisions without interference from politicians.

As a result of the election, we will move ahead with implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). By eliminating many out-of-pocket costs associated with preventive healthcare, the ACA will dramatically expand the number of people who can receive high-quality, affordable care from trusted and essential providers like Planned Parenthood.

At Planned Parenthood alone, nearly three million women a year already rely on close to 800 health centers for a range of personal and preventive health care services, such as gynecological and breast exams, STI testing and counseling, Pap tests, HIV testing, and more. The ACA’s provisions will enable millions more women to take advantage of these services with no co-pays or deductibles.

Although we have a women’s health champion in the White House, manifestations of fervently anti-choice agendas remain present at both the federal and state levels. Below, we will examine some of those state attacks. As their proponents begin recycling the scraps of this year’s anti-choice campaigns into renewed efforts down the road, we will certainly keep a close watch.

State Issues: Recap and Moving Forward

In five states – Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, and Ohio – anti-choice initiatives to define “personhood” as beginning from the moment of fertilization either failed to gather either enough signatures to be voted upon by citizens or, if they did, were rejected at the polls. Although the presence of these efforts reflects a continuing trend of attacks on the safe and legal termination of a woman’s pregnancy, trends within states indicate a weakening popularity for the anti-choice “personhood” tactic.

Proponents of personhood amendments in Colorado failed to gather the legally required number of signatures necessary to place the issue on the Nov. 6th ballot, whereas with similar initiatives, in  both 2008 and 2010, they were actually voted on though subsequently defeated by wide margins.  In Nevada, two separate personhood measures also failed to gather enough signatures, mirroring the outcome of a previous personhood initiative in 2010. Mean while, in Florida, personhood supporters neglected to deliver the requisite materials to the state by the 2012 deadline to appear on this year’s ballot.

Arizona state legislators attempted to redress the stalling of personhood legislation by referring SB 1494 to the November 6th ballot. Although this effort also failed, Arizona HB 2036 has traversed the federal court system as legal sparring continues over the restrictive nature of the legislation. The bill would ban all abortion procedures after 20 weeks of gestation, earlier than any other state. Concerns exist over the bill’s lack of exceptions for women who discover fetal birth defects or other life-threatening conditions beyond 20 weeks into their pregnancy. As it stands, the bill stymies a woman’s ability to decide to end her pregnancy within pre-existing legal parameters.

Efforts on behalf of advancing a personhood amendment in Ohio yielded too few signatures to be listed on the November 6th ballot, although the state has other threats to reproductive freedom pending. Ohio HB 125 would outlaw abortion, even within the legal limits prescribed by Roe v. Wade (1973), if a fetal heartbeat can be detected.  According to reports by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Ohio’s state legislators have come to a consensus on the bill and may pass it by the end of this year.

Unlike these states that focused on abortion restrictions, Texas navigated state healthcare laws in an effort to insert clauses that would defund family planning services, particularly its seven Planned Parenthood affiliates. However, these affiliates have successfully referred to the state court system and made progress towards the dissolution of the state’s anti-choice administrative rules passed in 2011. These rules stipulate that health care providers who terminate a woman’s pregnancy, counsel her on options that include abortion, or associate with providers that do either, will lose all state funding. After suing the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Planned Parenthood affiliates received an affirmative decision that prohibits that state from canceling their funding for being affiliates of an organization that offers safe and legal abortion services.

A woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy has become much more precarious in Mississippi, where the state’s only abortion provider, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has been mired in bureaucratic and legal struggles to remain open.  In 2011, Mississippi voters rejected a personhood amendment to the state constitution, though anti-choice legislators have adapted the intent of this failed amendment into a “targeted regulation of abortion providers” (TRAP) law. On July 1st of this year, a new law took effect mandating that abortion providers must be certified as obstetricians/gynecologists who also have privileges at local hospitals. Mississippi is the only state with such strict, and medically unfounded, provisions. The law masquerades as safeguarding women’s health, though its intent is to make the termination of a woman’s pregnancy a nonexistent option in Mississippi. Following the enactment of this law, a federal judge ruled that the Jackson Women’s Health Organization may continue to operate without criminal or civil penalties while it pursues legal challenge to the state law.

Unfortunately, these state initiatives only reflect a portion of the anti-choice efforts currently unfolding across the country, and we expect to see more challenges to reproductive freedom in the future.

Where Pennsylvania Stands

Pennsylvania’s status quo on reproductive freedom stems from a governor, state legislature, and congressional representatives that lean predominantly towards anti-choice policies. Like Mississippi, this state has endured its share of TRAP laws, most notably Act 122, signed into law in December 2011 by Governor Corbett. The law requires all abortion facilities to meet standards of classification as an “ambulatory surgical facility,” often entailing additional administrative and architectural alterations. The law imposes restrictions that do not have an immediate impact on women’s health. Rather, it places a financial chokehold on abortion providers, thereby diminishing a woman’s ability to access safe and reputable abortion facilities in the state.

A positive note to remember is the lifting of a separate financial barrier to reproductive health services, accomplished by maintaining the Affordable Care Act. Moving forward, the framework for Pennsylvanians to receive care under the ACA will depend on the actions of the Pennsylvania state government, which has about a month to develop a state health insurance exchange program within the parameters of the ACA. If it fails to deliver, the federal government will intervene to establish a health insurance exchange in the state.

Despite the severe challenges to women’s reproductive freedom in each of these states, women across the nation expressed to policymakers that their ability to make personal decisions about what is best for their reproductive health is a personal priority. Although we expect continued attacks  on the essential domains of women’s health care – from funding for Planned Parenthood, to access to contraception, to safe and legal abortion – we are stronger than ever to hold our leaders accountable for protecting our reproductive freedom.