News & Commentary

Last Thursday, Republican Representative Bruce Rendon introduced HB 5711, a piece of legislation that takes every attack on women's health in Michigan and combines them into the greatest assault on reproductive rights in Michigan history.This dangerous attack is moving rapidly and is scheduled to go before the House Committee on Health Policy tomorrow at 9 am.These bills endanger nearly all aspects of reproductive health care by targeting doctors and creating expensive regulations in the hopes of shutting down health centers that provide abortion services. Here’s a breakdown of just what this bill includes:Requiring politics, not medicine, in the examination roomJust like the coercive abortion act that we've talked about before, HB 5711 would require that doctors question women for evidence that they are being coerced into having an abortion.Though supporters claim this bill would protect women, it offers no protection to women coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy. It would also institute mandatory “coercion screenings” for all abortion-seeking women, creating another step in the already lengthy process of obtaining an abortion in Michigan.Preventing women in rural areas from accessing careConsidering that 83% of Michigan counties have no abortion providers, it is essential that doctors are able to prescribe abortion drugs through a telephone consultation. Studies have shown that the practice of using telemedicine is safe, effective, and often the best choice for women living in rural areas far from health care providers. However, HB 5711 would require a physician’s presence for abortions via the use of prescription drugs, regardless that such travel and time away from a job is impossible for women already in dire economic circumstances.Burdening abortion providers with new and expensive regulationsAnti-choice legislation often attempts to ensure that abortion care providers lose their licenses and for clinics to be shut down by creating costly, unnecessary and cumbersome rules and regulations. HB 5711 includes several such regulations including:

Several conservative states—such as Oklahoma and Texas—have drawn attention for the proliferation of anti-choice laws proposed and passed by their legislatures in the past year. But as the War on Women continues to grow nationwide, legislatures across the country are taking steps to severely restrict reproductive freedom. Michigan has already received a failing grade on its choice-related laws from NARAL, and yet the current dismal state of access to abortion in Michigan is nothing compared to what could soon become in reality. This legislative season, the legislature has already passed a redundant ban on “partial birth abortions." But over a dozen more potential pieces of extreme anti-choice legislation are currently at various stages of being passed into law. From personhood to ultrasounds, the proposed legislation represents every variety of anti-choice tactic we’ve witnessed in state legislatures across the country in recent months. This unfortunately lengthy list of currently-proposed laws and regulations is a striking view of the dire threats to reproductive health and rights in our state. Fetal Personhood (SB 13, HJR HH) We’ve seen the push for “personhood”-–the conferring of the full rights of a living human being on a fertilized egg--—in several states recently, often in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment. The personhood bill in Michigan would alter all state legal code to include “fetus” as part of the definition of “an individual.” This would have serious implications for the legality of abortion, rendering all abortions after the 11th week of pregnancy (when the fetal stage begins) potentially prosecutable as murder . This bill has been referred to the committee on judiciary, but has not gone further since its introduction early last year. Stricter Regulations and Requirements for Abortion Providers (HB 4119, HB 4120, SB 25, SB 54 & 55) These bills fall into a category of anti-choice legislation that appears fairly minor, but is frequently used to impose excessively burdensome regulations on abortion providers, increasing the chances that clinics will be fined or shut down completely. Sometimes known by the acronym “TRAP” (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), such regulations have become a common anti-choice tactic. These bills would mandate that all remains be disposed of according to the same regulations governing the disposal of dead bodies: they must be buried, cremated, or interred. Women who experience the pain of a miscarriages could be affected by this bill.  Strengthening of Parental Notification Laws (SB 135) Abortion is illegal for minors without parental consent in Michigan, unless a young woman successfully petitions the court to grant a waiver of the consent requirement. The bill currently up for consideration in the state senate would remove the right of young women to seek a waiver through a different division of family court in cases where one division has previously denied it.  This gives young women in a desperate situation only one chance to be heard. This bill has passed favorably out of committee without amendment, and has been recommended for immediate effect. It awaits a decision from the Senate committee of the whole. Invasive Ultrasound Requirements (SB 313, HB 4433) One of Michigan’s proposed ultrasound bill would require all women to undergo an ultrasound a minimum of two hours prior to beginning an abortion procedure. Another would require the use of the most technologically-advanced equipment available. In very early pregnancy, this would likely mean a highly invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound. The bill requires that the monitor be turned in a woman’s direction, so that the only way to exercise her option to not view the image is to turn her head or close her eyes. This bill has not progressed since its introduction in March of last year. Similar highly invasive abortion legislation has been defeated in other states. Regulations on the Prescription of Abortion Drugs (SB 420, HB 4688) This bill would prohibit the prescription of abortion drugs without a physical examination. Particularly for women in rural areas—of which there are plenty in the state of Michigan—this regulation could severely affect the ability to obtain an abortion. There is no medical indication for banning the practice of tele-medicine for abortion; on the contrary, research has found telemedicine for the prescription of abortion to be safe and effective. This bill was introduced in June, and has been referred to the committee on health policy. Requirement for Neonatal Units for Abortion Providers (SB 523, HB 4715) This bill aims to further the reach of Michigan’s “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” (passed into law in 2002) by requiring all abortions post-19 weeks to take be carried out in facilities with neonatal units. Late abortions virtually always occur for reasons of serious medical necessity. For women in this difficult situation, limiting the availability of late-term abortion only serves to make an already dangerous and painful experience even more challenging. This bill was introduced in June, and has not yet progressed. Insurance Restrictions (HB 4143, HB 4147, SB 612, SB 613) Several bills have been introduced for the purpose of prohibiting state-provided health insurance from covering abortion procedures for state public employees. The bills state that abortion coverage may be provided if purchased separately as an additional rider. Beyond the obvious problem of passing that out-of-pocket expense on to (often underpaid) woman workers, the reality is that no such “abortion riders” even currently exist. This package of bills passed favorably out of the committee on health policy in December, and has been recommended for immediate effect. Liability Insurance for Abortion Providers (SB 876) This bill would strengthen the requirements for liability insurance for abortion providers, making it more difficult and costly for physicians to continue providing abortions to their patients. This bill was introduced in December and has been referred to the committee on insurance. Prohibition of Coercive Abortion (HB 4798, HB 4799, HB 5134, HB 5182) This bill would make it a crime to coerce a woman to have an abortion against her will, and could target—among others—any spouse, partner (or parent of a minor) who encouraged a woman to seek an abortion while allowing coercing a woman not to have an abortion to remain perfectly legal. In the time since I last wrote about the anti-coercion bill, additional accompanying bills have been introduced. Much like the claims that ultrasound regulations are about protecting “informed consent,” the anti-coercion bill is hypocritically touted as attempting to “protect” women. This notion of “protection” is rendered even more patronizing by the further screening requirement that would deny a woman the right to even decide for herself whether she had been coerced. Before the recent House vote on this package of bills, some legislators highlighted the hypocrisy by proposing amendments that would also make it illegal to coerce a woman into continuing a pregnancy. The amendments were rejected; the bills passed easily in the House on Tuesday by a vote of 72-37. Read more about this legislation. Removal of State Funding for Abortion-Providing Facilities (HB 5242) This recently introduced bill would deny all state funds and contracts to any facility or organization that provides abortion. It is difficult to imagine that many large-scale medical facilities could afford to sacrifice their eligibility for any and all state money. Smaller women’s health clinics that are determined to continue providing abortion services would be dramatically affected by the loss of all state grant eligibility, and it is not at all unreasonable to fear that many would be forced to close. This bill alone has the potential to greatly decrease the availability of safe and legal abortion in the state of Michigan. This bill was introduced in January, and has not yet progressed through the system. Outlawing Abortion After 20 Weeks (HB 5343, HB 5344) Similar to other bills which have been proposed and passed recently in other states, this bill would outlaw all abortion after 20 weeks. The only exception in the bill is for cases in which death—but not severe non-fatal health consequences—would likely result if the pregnancy were to continue. The bill even goes so far as to callously specify that a woman’s threatened suicide does not qualify as a risk to her life. This bill was only recently introduced, and has not yet moved forward. As problematic as any one of these bills is on its own, it is even more frightening to consider the many intersections between them. For example, imagine that any combination of these proposed bills become law: an increasing number of women are likely to find themselves unable to jump through the necessary hoops to obtain an abortion before it’s too late. To make matters even grimmer, Michigan’s governor and legislature are strongly anti-choice; so the unfortunate reality is that any and all of these bills have a strong chance of passing. If there is any hope of saving some semblance of reproductive freedom in Michigan, it is urgent for the people of the state to send a strong and clear message to the politicians that this kind of anti-woman legislation will simply not be tolerated. The full text of these—and other—bills can be viewed at http://www.legislature.mi.gov

Abortion has never been “my issue”. But a recent trip to Lansing on June 12, 2012 changed all of that. On that day, an activist and advocate was born. As I watched the House Committee on Health Policy hearing on the abortion omnibus package of bills, I saw only men, male after male, talk about what we should do about women’s reproductive health. My frustration level rose steadily. When Chairwoman Gail Haines noted that that she could see no other business, even though over ninety women were staring at her, waiting their turn to testify, my anger went through the roof. Now and activist and advocate for women in Michigan, here is my take on the current debate on HB 5711, 5712, & 5713. Increased regulations, 20 week abortion ban, screening for coercion, and $1 million required malpractice coverage all serve to snatch away the most basic and essential care a woman can have. Tighter regulations, referred to as “Surgery Centers” sound good. Who doesn’t want a clean clinic? Who doesn’t want to feel like someone else is watching out for those women? But the reality is, these centers will put clinics out of reach for those in society who need the clinic the most. If the clinic becomes a free-standing surgery clinic, they will have to charge more, and lose the clientele they were created to serve. This isn’t feasible. It sets aside the very people that need the clinic the most. The 20-weeks ban is problematic because fetal testing can’t occur until after 18 weeks. That leaves only a 2-week window in which to have the tests, get the results, emotionally digest the result and make one of the most important decisions a woman can make, schedule another appointment, and have the abortion if that is what is necessary. I can hardly get in to see my doctor for a persistent knee pain in two week’s time, let alone complete all that a decision of this magnitude entails. This ban will effectively eliminate abortions for fetuses that are not, and never will be, viable, will cause women undue stress and horror if they are required to carry the fetus to term, and deliver it stillborn, or watch it die. Why? Women are coerced into abortions, and we need to screen for it! This, I believe, is a claim originating from people who are completely out of touch with the reality of life in poverty. There are more women who are forced into pregnancy, and prevented from aborting than there are women who are coerced into abortion. The result is a society in which we have many children who are not wanted, not supported, and not given access to health care and a quality of life that they need, and often used as pawns in a scheme to control women’s lives. If you care about children, support the ones we have. If you are looking to “save” the ones we are about to have, think about supporting them. Requiring doctors to purchase $1 million dollars in malpractice coverage will also reduce the accessibility of abortions. It pushes doctors into a position in which they have no other choice but to cease providing desperately needed health care for women. Perhaps some will, but at the very least it appears tactical because the only alternative to paying the unfairly exorbitant fee is to not pay it, therefore reducing another doctor to whom women might have access. The issue is two-fold: first, it’s about the problem of blocking access to those in our society who are without means, and keeping them there by saddling them with a bunch of kids they don’t want, and a government who won’t pay for them. So then what? A woman is left with performing the abortion herself, which entails a severe threat to her health. Abortions will continue to happen, whether or not there are clinics that are providing assistance and care. Can we please ensure that at the very least, we are past the point in this country where women are hunkered down in the bathroom with a coat hanger? Secondly, in a paternalistic society, women are sick and tired of the feeling that men are setting the rules about what they can and can’t do, say, think, or how they can or can’t be. Many feel that this is just another brick in that wall. I think that captures a lot of the frustration we have recently seen and heard around this issue. Men do not trust women to make this decision, but women are really the only ones who can make the best choice on this issue, experientially speaking. So I want to urge our representatives, in view of all of the women who stood to speak and were ignored in Lansing, in view of all of the women who are living in poverty and have no way out, in view of women who have means, but no reproductive freedom, please take a stand for women! Respect our right to make our own decisions about our own bodies. Don’t take that decision away from us. Trust us to do what is best, and give us the opportunity to do so.  

Even though I'm strongly pro-choice, I don't expect everyone to agree with my position. Our country thrives on free and honest debate. That's why I'm outraged by a rash of legislation across the country that pretends to protect and inform women, while really intended to restrict a woman's right to control her reproductive health.  Today, the Michigan House is voting on a disingenuous package of bills that claim to protect women in abusive relationships, but is actually a shameful attempt to take away women's right to make decisions. Dubbed the "Coercive Abortion Prevention Act," these bills would force doctors to act as detective and investigate the women who seek their care for signs of coercion and abuse.

The Michigan Legislature is once again putting political gamesmanship ahead of women’s health. Today, the House and Senate will vote on bills prohibiting a rarely used, yet medically necessary abortion method. As if that's not bad enough, the bills are useless since the procedure is already banned by federal law. Take Action: Tell your elected officials that this ban is a waste of time. HB 4109 and SB 160 are the legislature’s fifth attempt to ban an abortion method already prohibited under federal law. Not only are these bills unnecessary and redundant, they don't provide an exception to protect a woman’s health. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an identical federal abortion ban in 2007 that did not include a health exception—overturning thirty plus years of precedent that required abortion restrictions to include health exceptions. This attempt to play politics with women's health is out of step with mainstream values and runs counter to the strong message from voters to focus on jobs and the economy. Instead of focusing on divisive political issues, the legislature should work together to promote common-sense polices that support a woman's ability to make informed and responsible health care decisions. Make your voice heard: Tell your legislator to protect women's health. By Shelli Weisberg, Legislative Director

Defending our essential civil liberties from being taken away is always important ...but some weeks make us especially proud.

In a sea of Planned-Parenthood-pink during a visit with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow during the Stand Up for Women’s Health Lobby Day, a young man raised his hand and asked the million dollar question – why should men be involved in the fight for women’s reproductive health? It was a good question, with a complicated answer, but one that would be a game-changer for women’s equality. Sen. Stabenow answered that men have to share responsibility for birth control in a relationship and men have to be concerned about sexually transmitted infections. And it’s so much more than that. So how do we answer the question for this obviously enlightened young man and those like him who rode a bus for 12 hours from Detroit to Washington, D.C., to spend six hours at a rally defending family planning? Men, who now dominate congressional leadership, are in the position to make decisions that most critically affect the reproductive rights of women in America. Women have never come close to representing our 51 percent of the population in elected positions and the 2010 election cycle was especially brutal across the nation with regards to equal representation. And as much as we hate to admit it, we exist in a society where decision-making power and earning power continue to be dominated by men. Therefore:

On the afternoon of February 18th, the House of Representatives hit a new low by passing the Pence Amendment. This extreme legislation would eliminate federal funding for all Planned Parenthood services, penalizing the organization for using its own, non-federal funds to provide abortions. If passed by the Senate, this measure would immediately jeopardize the health of millions of women, men and teens who rely on Planned Parenthood to provide basic healthcare services. In Michigan, Planned Parenthood’s health centers serve nearly 90,000 women and men across the state each year, providing access to safe and affordable family planning and preventative health care. These services include life-saving breast and cervical cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infections testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, HIV testing and counseling, and medical referrals. In many areas, they are the only provider serving low-income women. Federal funds enable Planned Parenthood to continue their mission of helping families in Michigan meet important health care needs and preventing unintended pregnancies. Not a penny of federal money goes towards abortion services, which make up a scant 3% of Planned Parenthood’s extensive services. We can't allow Planned Parenthood to be defunded, putting the health of millions at risk and challenging a woman’s right to make informed moral decisions.

In this week's Rights Review, local and national civil liberties news overlap in a big way — from politicians playing politics with women's health, testing the very limits of free speech and the troubling tale of brainwashing Carl Levin.Next Friday, be sure to check out the fascinating documentary After Stonewall at the Kalamazoo Civil Liberties Film Fest. Only two chances remain to indulge in dinner and a movie with our Southwestern branch, so purchase your tickets today.