The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted yesterday in favor of a bill that requires a woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours from the time of the consultation with the doctor or abortion provider to the time she undergoes the abortion. Last month, the New Hampshire State Senate voted against a different bill that sought to impose the 24 hours waiting period. The provisions that passed in the House yesterday were added to a business tax-credit bill.

The New Hampshire House Finance Committee tried to remove the 24-hour waiting period provision, but the House voted to pass the bill with the provision in a 198-100 vote. Lawmakers arguing against the provisions said that the tax-credit bill will most likely be defeated in the State Senate because of the added anti-abortion provision.

One member of the House told the The Huffington Post that “what we have done is take a good piece of fiscal legislation and condemn the legislation to death on the other side of the wall. We’ve hijacked the bill.”

26 States require a 24 hour waiting period. Last week, Utah became the first state to enact a mandatory 72-hour waiting period.

Huffington Post 5/16/12; Concord Monitor 5/16/12; AP 5/15/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 5/10/12

In a statement released yesterday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) announced that they submitted comments (PDF) to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in opposition to the Obama Administration’s recent announcement that employers’ insurance plans must include contraception coverage. The Obama Administration, in an accommodation, made clear that if a religiously-affiliated institute objects, the insurance company will provide the coverage for contraception directly to the employee or student without institutional involvement. The regulation requiring birth control coverage without co-pays or deductibles is a part of the preventive care package of the Affordable Care Act that goes into effect August 2012. The Bishops have rejected the administration’s compromise.

The comments sent to HHS from the USCCB’s General Counsel outlined six points of opposition to the mandate. These points included that contraceptive services are still included as a mandated preventative service in the Affordable Care Act, that religious employers are defined as employers that “primarily hire and serve only members of their own religion”, and that there is a lack of exemption for non-religious employers with “conscientious objections.”

In the comments, the USCCB wrote “we believe that this mandate is unjust and unlawful – it is bad health policy, and because it entails an element of government coercion against conscience, it creates a religious freedom problem. These moral and legal problems are compounded by an extremely narrow exemption that intrusively and unlawfully carves up the religious community into those that are deemed ‘religious enough’ for an exemption, and those that are not.” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, “We’re not trying to win an argument here… we’re trying to implement a policy that will affect millions of women.”

USCCB Press Release 5/15/12; USCCB Memo to HHS 5/15/12; The Hill 5/15/12; AP 5/15/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 4/13/12, 3/15/12

The Obama Administration released a Statement of Administration Policy (PDF) yesterday in which the administration threatened to veto the House version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), HR 4970, because it does not contain many of the protective provisions that are included in the Senate version. These provisions include protection for LGBT, immigrant, and Native American victims of domestic or sexual violence.

In the Statement of Administration Policy, the administration blasted HR 4970 for allowing abusers to be notified when domestic violence victims file a VAWA complaint. In the Statement, the administration wrote, “these proposals senselessly remove existing legal protections, undermine VAWA’s core purpose of protecting victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, frustrate important law enforcement objectives, and jeopardize victims by placing them directly in harm’s way.” The Statement also says that “if the President is presented with HR 4970, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

The House Judiciary Committee passed the Cantor/Adams VAWA Reauthorization bill in a nearly straight party line vote on May 8th. Only one Republican, Ted Poe (TX-2), joined the Democrats in voting no. The Committee, in denying consideration of the substitute bill of Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), essentially rejected what Vice President Biden (the principal author of the original VAWA) called the “real McCoy” VAWA Reauthorization, which passed the Senate with a bipartisan 68-31 vote in late April.

ThinkProgress 5/16/12; Statement of Administration Policy 5/15/12; Reuters 5/15/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 5/9/12

An Oklahoma Judge ruled on Friday that a proposed state law severely restricting medication abortions is unconstitutional, permanently blocking the enforcement of the bill.  Oklahoma County District Judge Donald Worthington issued the ruling against the bill, which banned non-FDA approved uses of the drug for abortion, but allowed for off-label use of the same medication for any other purpose.  A judge temporarily blocked the law in October but Judge Worthington’s ruling makes the block permanent.

In his ruling, Judge Worthington wrote that the bill is “so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that [the bill] can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those women who do.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that filed the original legal challenge, issued a statement in which its President and CEO, Nancy Northup, said, “It sends a strong message to anti-choice legislators in Oklahoma and beyond that their disingenuous tactics for restricting access to abortion and their hostility toward women’s fundamental rights will not stand. The court has made it clear this law was never about protecting women. It was about banning safe and effective methods of terminating a pregnancy, and making it impossible for women to exercise the full range of their constitutionally protected rights.”

This is the third time this year that a state court has overturned an anti-abortion law in Oklahoma.  The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office has vowed to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.  Last month, the state Supreme Court ruled against a proposal to put a personhood law on the state election ballot.

Tulsa World, 5/15/12; Chicago Tribune 5/14/12; ThinkProgress 5/14/12; Care2 5/14/12; Center for Reproductive Rights Press Release 5/14/12

The number of US women in Chief Information Officer (CIO) positions has decreased since 2010, according to a survey (PDF)  released by Harvey Nash USA this week.  In 2010, 12 percent of CIOs were women.  That number dropped to 11 percent in 2011 and is down to 9 percent this year.

The report finds that one third of US CIOs say that within their IT organizations there are no women in management level positions.  52% of US CIOs report that women are underrepresented in their IT organizations, according to the survey.

Senior Vice President of International Technology Solutions at Harvey Nash USA, Anna Frazzetto, said that the numbers reflect that “less and less women are attracted into that space so you wind up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It’s not a very welcoming arena to be in.” She also said that “the skills shortage is the biggest it’s ever been, and it’s going to cause companies to get a little more creative in shifting the culture of organizations.”

Reuters 5/14/12; Business Wire 5/14/12; Harvey Nash USA/ Telecity Group Survey 5/12

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill into law on Monday that gives pharmacists the right to deny women any drug that the pharmacist believes can cause an abortion.  Critics have argued that the bill can give pharmacists the right to deny contraception or the morning after pill to women because under the law, pharmacists and doctors have broad power to deny any drugs that they “reasonably believe” could end a pregnancy.  This is the fifth anti-abortion law that Brownback has signed since taking office last year.

The Kansas state Senate passed the bill earlier this month in a 23-16 vote.  Under the law, individuals are not required to refer a patient to an abortion provider and they have the right to refuse to “participate in administering any drug they believe terminates a pregnancy.”  Kansas state law since 1970 has given individuals the right to refuse to “perform or participate in an abortion procedure.”

Kansas is now the fifth state that allows pharmacists the right to deny medication based on a conscience clause. Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota all have similar laws. Florida, Maine, and Tennessee also have refusal measures, but these do not specifically mention pharmacists.

The Wichita Eagle 5/14/12; AP 5/14/12; Feminist Daily Newswire 5/3/12

A study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and published in the June 2012 edition of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health demonstrates the link between knowledge of contraceptive methods and avoidance of risky behaviors among young adults. The Guttmacher institute collected data from a nationally representative sample of 1,800 sexually active people between the ages of 18 and 29 in 2009. They reported that “more than half of young men and a quarter of young women received low scores on contraceptive knowledge, and six in 10 underestimated the effectiveness of oral contraceptives.”

The study found that the odds of a woman having unprotected sex in a three month period decreased by 9% with each correct answer on a contraception knowledge scale. The study stated that young adults were likely to engage in risky behavior due to fear of side effects of contraception, societal attitudes that “undervalue the importance of contraception,” or mistrust of the government’s role in birth control promotion.

The overall conclusions of the study were that “programs to increase young adults’ knowledge about contraceptive methods and use are urgently needed. Given the demonstrated link between method knowledge and contraceptive behaviors, such programs may be useful in addressing risky behavior in this population.”

Guttmacher Institute Publication 6/12; ThinkProgress 5/14/12; Salon 5/11/12

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed a law on Friday banning schools in the state from teaching students about “gateway sexual activity” in sex education classes. According to drafters of the bill, so-called gateway sexual activity includes any type of “intentional touching of the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttock or breast of a human being.” Under the signed bill, HB 3621/ SB 3310, sex-ed classes will be required to “exclusively and emphatically promote sexual risk avoidance through abstinence, regardless of a student’s current or prior sexual experience.” The bill passed the House in a 68-23 vote and the Senate in a 29-1 vote.

President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Memphis Region, Barry Chase, said in a statement statement, “Most parents in Tennessee want students to get comprehensive sexuality education that includes messages about prevention as well as abstinence. They expect that the schools will equip their young people with the information they need to protect themselves. This bill ties the hands of educators in Tennessee and will prevent them from providing the comprehensive education that students want and need and their parents expect.”

Under the law, teachers or outside educators can be fined as much as $500 for violating the law. Opponents have criticized the bill for being vague and making it so that teachers can’t even mention hand-holding and kissing in sex-ed classes.

MSNBC 5/14/12; ABC News 5/13/12; Reuters 5/11/12; Planned Parenthood of Greater Memphis Region Press Release 5/11/12

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a law on Friday that expands an exemption to a state law that requires employers to include birth control coverage in their health plans’ coverage of prescription medication. Under a law passed in Arizona in 2002, employers’ health plans must include contraception coverage if the plans cover prescriptions, unless the employer is a church. Under the new exemption signed by Brewer, any employer that identifies as “religiously affiliated” will not have to cover birth control.

Bryan Howard, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Arizona said that “this is only the latest of the numerous bills the governor has signed that restrict women’s access to preventative health care, taking personal medical decisions away from women and handing them over to politicians.”

The original version of the bill included an exemption for any employer who has a religious objection to birth control. The version signed by Brewer applies only to organizations with articles of incorporation that “clearly state that it is a religiously motivated organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organization’s operating principles.” Lawmakers still concede that “the language is not airtight” and employers could declare themselves religiously affiliated in order to evade the mandate, according to the Arizona Star.

Arizona Star 5/12/12; Associated Press 5/12/12

Yesterday, District Judge James Reynolds ruled unconstitutional Montana’s ban on birth control coverage for teenage girls who are insured by the state’s low-income health insurance program for minors, Healthy Montana Kids. He concluded that the law “violates the right of privacy and the rights of persons not adults set forth in the Montana Constitution.”

In his ruling, Judge Reynolds said, “In this scheme, if you want to control your acne, your birth control is covered; if you want to avoid pregnancy and control your procreative autonomy, your birth control is not covered…This turns the idea of the fundamental right of privacy on its head.” He continued, “The point is this: because HMK provides payment for medical services associated with procreative autonomy, the individual privacy guaranteed in Montana’s constitution applies and the right operates to prohibit precisely the inquiry made by the contraception exclusion – unless the state can provide a narrowly tailored, compelling state interest judging this infringement,” reported the Missoulian.

Children whose families’ incomes are up 250% of the federal poverty level are eligible for insurance through Healthy Montana Kids. About 10 percent of the 25,000 children covered are females between the ages of 15 and 19. Though the program will not cover the drug for pregnancy prevention, teenage mothers receive coverage for prenatal and postnatal care, as well as delivery expenses. In 2009, the program spent $720,000 to cover the costs of 43 births to teenage mothers.

Media Resources: Missoulian 5/11/2012; Feminist Daily Newswire 11/2/2010

The House on Thursday passed a plan to increase military spending while slashing funding for food and child care programs, as well as Medicaid and federal employees’ benefits. The budget proposal, written by House Budget Committee chairman Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI1), was an attempt to avoid the cuts to defense spending mandated in last summer’s budget deal. The plan passed with the minimum 218 votes, with 16 Republicans and all Democrats voting no.

The plan which would cut the deficit by $300 billion over 10 years, would cut over $36 billion from food aid programs, $48 billion from Medicaid, and $83 billion in federal retirement benefits while allowing for major increases in defense spending. During the floor debate on the Ryan budget, Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA3) said, “I am so sick and tired of the demonization of programs that benefit poor people in this country…Rather than cutting waste in the Pentagon budget, which we all know exists, you protect the Pentagon budget. You know, rather than going after subsidies for oil companies and going after billionaire tax breaks, you protect all that.”

The measure will likely not pass the Senate and the White House threatens to veto it, though elements of the proposal are likely to reappear in the future as both parties attempt to avoid the mandated cuts scheduled for 2013.

Media Resources: Huffington Post 5/10/12; USA Today 5/10/12

In the 3rd ruling in this case in a week, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Texas cannot exclude Planned Parenthood from its state women’s health program, pending the hearing of formal arguments. The most recent ruling reversed an emergency stay issued earlier last week that allowed Texas to ban funding. The three-judge panel agreed with District Court Judge Lee Yeakel, whose initial ruling in the case a week ago had imposed a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the law. Less than 24 hours after Yeakel’s ruling, Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of appeals issued an emergency stay, giving Texas the right to enforce its law that would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood in the state.

At question is a rule implemented by Governor Rick Perry in March, that states that affiliates of abortion providers are ineligible to participate in the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program. Eight Planned Parenthood affiliates, none of which perform abortions, sued Texas over the law in mid-April.

In response to Friday’s ruling, Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards told the Associated Press, “This case isn’t about Planned Parenthood; it’s about the women who rely on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, birth control, and well-woman exams…We won’t let politics interfere with the health care that nearly 3 million people a year rely on Planned Parenthood for in Texas and around the country.”

A court filing by Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell indicated the state would cut all women’s health program funds of federal courts order Texas to allow Planned Parenthood to receive funding. The motion states, “State law prohibits Texas from continuing to operate the Texas Women’s Program if taxpayer money must be provided to entities that affiliate with abortion-promoting entities…Consequently, the district court’s preliminary injunction effectively forces Texas to choose between contravening state law and shutting down the program.”

Associated Press 5/4/2012; Feminist Daily Newswire 5/1/2012, 5/2/2012

The Oklahoma State House unanimously passed a bill yesterday that allows for patients to sue abortion providers or doctors who prescribe the medication for an abortion. Under House Bill 2561, patients, or the parents of a minor patient, can sue the abortion provider if anything goes wrong during the abortion or if the patient believes the provider is not following “voluntary and informed consent provisions of state law related to abortions.”

House Bill 2561 passed without debate or discussion in an 89 to 0 vote. Last week, the Senate passed the bill 33 to 9 with amendments that remove liability from doctors who refer women with pregnancy complications to an abortion provider, as long as the abortion provider follows Oklahoma’s informed consent rules.

The bill, authored by State Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, allows the providers and doctors to be sued for actual and punitive damages for wrongful death on behalf of the fetus. Patients can also sue for emotional distress and damages. Wesselhoft warned, “If you’re a doctor, you’d better Google and find out who you’re referring to.”

The bill now goes to Governor Mary Fallin (R) to be signed. Fallin opposes abortion.

Associated Press 5/3/12; The Oklahoman 5/3/12

A version of the Violence Against Women Act introduced by House Republicans excludes some protections found in the Senate bill, such as protections for LGBT, immigrant, and Native American victims of domestic violence. The House bill’s key sponsor, Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL), defended the bill and his spokeswoman said that the protections were unnecessary because “the grants are available to all victims, and there is no evidence to conclude that victims are being turned away.” ThinkProgress disputes this claim, reporting that cases of LGBT domestic violence have increased by 38 percent this past year and that 44 percent of LGBT victims were denied access to traditional domestic violence shelters.

The Senate passed their version of VAWA, which includes the provisions, on April 26 in a 68 to 31 vote. Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal praised the action taken by the Senate and said, “Violence is violence and VAWA must cover all victims. The House must move promptly to pass the Senate bill without amendments and not a watered down substitute.”

Other women’s groups and domestic violence victims’ advocacy groups also criticized the bill and said that without the provisions, the bill is incomplete. President of NOW, Terry O’Neill, told Politico that “the agenda that is being promoted by the Adams bill is racist and homophobic and leaves women behind, and that’s not OK.”

Politico 5/3/12; ThinkProgress 5/3/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 4/26/12

A bill introduced by Congressman Todd Rokita (R-Ind) would force states to halt programs that provide funding for abortions for low-income women. The bill, HR 4160 (PDF) or the State Health Flexibility Act, was introduced in March and has been added to the Republican budget plan. The bill would move Medicaid to a block grant model in which states are given blocks of money and can individually structure their low-income healthcare plans. Although the Hyde Amendment has prohibited federal funding of abortion since 1976, 17 states have programs that use state money to cover abortions for low income women as part of their Medicaid plans. HR 4160 would make this practice illegal.

Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University, says the bill “would block the only avenue left to states that wish to make safe and legal abortions accessible to low income women.” Judy Waxman of the National Women’s Law Center says the bill “would be a significant change from how current law operates today.”

Mother Jones’ Nick Baumann, who investigated HR 4160, wrote that under the proposed plan, states would have “more say over how they spend Medicaid funds, but it forbids them from covering abortions, even with state money — unless they purchase separate abortion-only plans or buy plans that include abortion coverage entirely with state funds. Either option could potentially cost these states millions of dollars.”

Mother Jones 5/3/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 10/14/11

The Justice Department filed court papers on Monday asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act’’s requirement that healthcare plans include contraception coverage. The lawsuit, brought by several states, challenges the Obama Administration’s rule that only “houses of worship” will not be required to cover birth control without co-pays or deductibles. Religiously affiliated schools, hospitals and organizations will be required to comply with the rule. Shortly after the announcement of the rule, the President declared that the requirement would be shifted to the insurance companies themselves in the event that a religiously affiliated institution objects.

The lawsuit, filed by the attorney general from Nebraska along with the attorneys general from Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, argues that religiously affiliated employees will be forced to drop insurance coverage because of the rule. In its request for dismissal, the Justice Department said that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they “face an immediate threat of having to offer the coverage” because the rule will not go in effect until next year.

Associated Press 5/1/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 2/10/12

The Kansas State Senate voted 23-16 on Wednesday to pass a broad bill that gives pharmacists the right to deny women any drug that the pharmacist believes can cause an abortion. The bill extends “conscience” protections to non-hospital facilities, including clinics and doctors’ offices. Supporters of the bill claim it protects pharmacists from being sued for following their consciences.

The bill gives pharmacists and doctors broad power to deny any drugs that they “reasonably believe” could end a pregnancy. Lawmakers and advocates in Kansas have expressed concern that this refusal measure could lead to the denial of lifesaving treatment for women, including chemotherapy. Republican state senator Tim Owens said, “This bill carries with it opportunities for unintended consequences where a person with medical skills and training could be in a situation to deny help resulting in the death of a mother. I do not accept that as a pro-life choice.” Others have called it an attack on birth control because it gives pharmacists the right to deny any medication based on “moral objections.”

The bill now goes to Governor Sam Brownback to be signed. Governor Brownback is an outspoken opponent of abortion. If the bill becomes law, Kansas will be the fifth state to allow pharmacists the right to deny medication based on a conscience clause. Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota all have similar laws. Florida, Maine, and Tennessee also have refusal measures, but these do not specifically mention pharmacists.

Kansas City Star 5/2/12; Associated Press 5/2/12; Coshocton Tribune 5/2/12

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it is launching an investigation into the handling of sexual assault reports at the University of Montana in Missoula. The investigation was prompted by the large number of sexual assaults; there have been 80 reported cases of rape at the university in the past three years. There have been 11 sexual assault reports involving students at the University of Montana in the past eighteen months. The Justice Department will probe complaints that the local police department failed to fully investigate and prosecute reports of sexual assault and discriminated on the basis of gender.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said “there are a lot of women in the community who have strong concerns about the manner in which sexual assaults have been handled.” He said the investigation will look into whether local law enforcement and university officials “acted promptly, fairly, and adequately to protect the interests of women” and said “our primary focus is not the number of reported allegations of sexual assault; rather, our focus is on the response.”

University officials said they will cooperate with the investigation. Missoula County’s chief prosecutor, Fred Van Valkenburg, blasted the investigation and defended his office. He called the investigation an “overreach by the federal government.”

CNN 5/2/12; Reuters 5/1/12; NPR 5/1/12; Bloomberg 5/1/12; Huffington Post 5/1/12

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a bill yesterday that prohibits women in the state from having an abortion after 20 weeks gestation, on the unsupported premise that the fetus can experience pain at 20 weeks. The “fetal pain” bill was passed in the Senate 36 to 19 at the end of March. The bill passed with an amendment allowing for an exception for “medically futile” pregnancies, which would apply in cases where the fetus experiences a fatal “congenital or chromosomal defect.”

The law does not include exceptions for rape or incest. Executive director of the Feminist Women’s Health Center, Nancy Booth, said this is especially problematic because “we’ve seen girls as young as 11 and 12 and it’s always a case of incest and abuse and molestation.” Lois Reis of Planned Parenthood Southeast said, “This is now interfering with how a physician can practice medicine in the best interest of his or her client; women don’t ask their legislators for health care information, they trust their doctors.”

Georgia is now the 8th state to have a “fetal pain” restriction. Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alabama all have the restrictions and Arizona just passed its restriction earlier this month. The American College of Gynecology disputes assertions that a fetus can feel pain at the 20 weeks gestation period, stating that there is “no legitimate evidence that fetuses can experience pain.”

Reuters 5/1/12; CBS Atlanta 5/1/12; Public Broadcasting Atlanta 5/1/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 4/13/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 3/28/12

A US Appeals Court yesterday overturned Monday’s ruling granting a temporary injunction that prevented Texas from defunding Planned Parenthood. Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of appeals issued an emergency stay, giving Texas the right to enforce its law that would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood in the state. Under a rule implemented by Governor Rick Perry in March, affiliates of abortion providers are ineligible to participate in the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program.

Eight Planned Parenthood affiliates, none of which perform abortions, sued Texas over the law in mid-April and were granted a temporary injunction by the District Court on Monday. The higher court stayed the injunction less than 24 hours after the District Court’s ruling. Judge Smith said he wanted to hear arguments and he gave Planned Parenthood until 5pm yesterday to file an opposition brief. The judge said he will consider this brief before issuing a final ruling.

A spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Commission in Texas, the commission that administers the Women’s Health Program, said that because of the ruling, “ineligible providers, including Planned Parenthood, are no longer eligible to bill the Women’s Health Program.” Rochella Tafolla, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, vowed that Planned Parenthood will continue to provide women with medical services, saying “we’re planning to continue to see women who are enrolled in the WHP because we don’t want to confuse them any more than the state has. It may be that services we provide today will not be reimbursed because of the judge’s and state’s actions last night. This is a midnight deal and we need to see the women that are relying on us.” She also urged the judge to act quickly for the 100,000 women in the state that rely on the program.

Reuters 5/1/12; Los Angeles Times 5/1/12; Huffington Post 5/1/12; Feminist Daily News Wire 5/1/12