News & Commentary

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

Matthew Bentley was 14 years old in 1997 when he broke into a house he thought was unoccupied. While rummaging for valuables, he was confronted by the owner. Matthew shot and killed her with a gun he found in the house.At the time of his crime, Matthew couldn't legally smoke, drive or join the military, but he would receive a mandatory adult sentence — life without the possibility of parole. In a new podcast, you can listen to Matthew tell his own story. (Bentley is pictured above before he was sentenced to life in prison without parole and today.)During Matthew's trial, the judge, according to Michigan law, was not allowed to consider his age, capacity for rehabilitation or his tough home life — Matthew's father and older brother were both in jail for molesting his siblings.Matthew has been in an adult prison since his sentence and will likely die there, unless the courts or our legislature act to put an end to sentencing schemes that ignore the capacity for change and rehabilitation in children and throw away the key.The question of whether it's constitutional to imprison teenagers for the rest of their lives for murders committed when they were children will be argued before the Supreme Court today in two cases from Alabama and Arkansas. Meanwhile, our case on behalf of Matthew and 12 others challenging what one client called their "slow death penalty" moves forward in federal district court in Michigan.These cases tell the stories of children often forgotten, failed or forced into incredible circumstances by adults. They tell stories about mistakes made and a system that refuses to give children a second chance. They tell stories in which children are sentenced to die in prison.Michigan incarcerates the second highest number of people serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed when they were younger than 18. Children as young as 14 in our state can be tried as adults and sentenced to mandatory life without parole.They will never be looked at again — not at 20 years old, 30 years old or 60 years old. There are more 2,500 individuals serving such sentences across the country, including more than 350 in Michigan.Although the wheels of justice move slowly, there is evidence that our criminal justice system is waking up to the fact that juveniles should be treated differently than adults. Fourteen states already refuse to sentence children to life in prison and, last year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it's cruel and unusual punishment to sentence children convicted of non-homicide crimes to a life behind bars without the possibility of parole.Hopefully, it will now find that even in cases where children are convicted of murder, they must be given the chance to rehabilitate themselves and possibly one day earn parole.The U.S. is the only country in the world that sentences children to life without parole, but it's not too late for our nation, and our state, to join the growing chorus of countries, advocates and international bodies calling for compassion and a second chance for our kids.

In order for this to be a true democracy, every eligible American must be able to vote. So why are states are making it harder for people to vote as legislatures pass voter suppression laws, putting roadblocks in front of our most fundamental constitutional right? In his radio address this week, Jack Lessenberry examines the issue of voter suppression laws in Michigan. Throughout American history, we have had to fight to ensure that no one is excluded from participating in our democracy. From poll taxes to literacy tests, regressive laws have sought to eliminate “undesirable” voices from the electorate: African-Americans, women, immigrants, the elderly and young people. Even after all the battles we've fought to gain access to the polls, as Lessenberry points out, fifty-five percent of registered voters didn't vote in our state. That's just registered voters: when you consider the number of people who haven't registered, the numbers grow even grimmer. "...it’s easy to beat up on people for not voting," Lessenberry points out, "but the fact is that we don’t make voting as easy as we could -- and there are efforts underway to make voting harder still." Instead of addressing some of the root causes of low voter turnout and encouraging all to participate in our democracy, lawmakers nationwide seem more interested in reinstating barriers along every step of the process, packaged as voter ID laws, restrictions to voter registration and cuts to early voting. We need to remind our elected officials that although the right to vote is often taken for granted, it is something that we can never afford to forget. After all, they should be seeking ways to encourage more Americans to vote, not inventing reasons to deny voters the ability to cast their ballots. Key News and Documents  Read More | Know Your Voting Rights Learn More | Voter Suppression

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.

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.  

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of talk here in Western Michigan about the mysterious Elliott Larsen.Seems like everyone is meeting, planning, forming opinions, and talking about this “Elliott Larsen” over coffee.  Even my good friend Susan asked me in a hushed voice, "Just who is this Elliott Larsen?"As it turns out, Elliott Larsen isn’t a person – it is an Act.

Voting is the fundamental right that our Republic is based on: the imbuement of individuals with the power to rule over others (within fixed time limits, of course).  That essential right hit a pot-hole yesterday, when the Michigan Senate approved a bill that would require photo ID for voter registration. The Detroit News reports the bill passed along close-to-party lines, with all Democrats voting in opposition with the exception of Sen. Bert Johnson (D-Detroit.

The singing ghost of Benjamin Franklin can protect you from police brutality, now that actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the Gregory Brothers (creators of the awesome Auto-Tune the News) have teamed up with the ACLU.