Here's this week's reproductive rights news brought to you by the women of Our Word (and at least one of the guys!). If you see something you find relevant please email it to me, bayprairie at gmail dot com

::::more below the fold::::

In international news this week:

Colombia's Highest Court Rejects Case Calling for Legalization of Abortion

BOGOTA, December 8, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The highest court in Colombia, the Constitutional Court, has rejected a case brought by Colombian native and abortion activist Monica Roa to legalize abortion. She argued that international agreements required Colombia to legalize abortion in certain circumstances.

The court did not rule on the case but rejected it as flawed, since the complaint filed lacked sufficient arguments to allow for a ruling. The rejection of the case, rather than a ruling against it has left the door open for another attempt by abortion activists to bring forward their cause in the courts.

Roa, an attorney with Women's Link Worldwide has, according to sources in Colombia, significant backing from US/international pro-abortion groups, including the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, Human Rights Watch, and others.

The story above came to me via Moiv and is from the anti-abortion organization, LifeSite. LifeSite's story characterizes this ruling as a "rejection" of the constitutional challenge yet it mentions "left the door open for another attempt" which is a bit odd. Lets look into this a little deeper. As mentioned above the constitutional challenge was lead by Monica Roa an attorney with Women's Link Worldwide. On their website they have the following information:

The Constitutional Court delays ruling on case challenging the country s restrictive abortion law

Through the Gender Justice LAICIA initiative, Women's Link constitutionally challenged Colombia's penal code provisions that, without exception, criminalize abortion. The decision to liberalize the law would be an important achievement for women's reproductive rights in the country and would set an important precedent in the region.

The President of the Constitutional Court announced on December 7 of 2005 that the Court would not rule on the complaint as it was presented. Women s Link Worldwide will study the decision of the Court when it becomes public to determine the next steps to be taken.

This case isn't over and the ruling hasn't even been made public yet. I would suspect that after study, the complaint will be presented again. LifeSite seems to be slanting this news in addition to reporting it. The story pays attorney Monica Roa a interesting yet rather backhanded compliment in the following sentence:

The plans were so impressive that one student called her a "one woman dis-information campaign."

Here's some information about Monica Roa, the "one woman dis-information campaign".

Monica Roa is the director of the Gender Justice Program at Women's Link Worldwide and the attorney that filed the case in Colombia.

Here's some information about Columbia from an interview she did this past July with the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID).

Challenging abortion law in Colombia, An interview with Monica Roa

AWID: Could you please explain the current abortion law in Colombia and how this impacts women?

MR: Abortion in Colombia is illegal under every circumstance. Colombia's abortion law stipulates that both the woman who has the abortion and the abortion provider can be sentenced to up to three years in prison. Colombia, Chile and El Salvador are the only three countries in Latin America that prohibit abortion under all circumstances. Only 4% of the world's population lives in countries where abortion is totally banned.

AWID: What exactly have you targeted for change within the law, and what immediate impacts for women would result if the case was successful?

MR: The complaint petitions the review of the constitutionality of Article 122 of the Colombian penal code, which criminalizes abortion under all circumstances. It sets forth that the criminalization of abortion, when the woman's life or health is in danger, the pregnancy is the result of rape, and/or when the fetus has impairments incompatible with life outside the womb, violates the following rights:

1. The right to equality and to non-discrimination (political constitution, art. 13), by criminalizing a medical practice that only women need and which, in certain cases, is necessary to save their lives. The result of this discrimination is that, for example, women lack control over their own bodies, including their reproductive health. the criminalization of abortion stigmatizes a medical procedure that all women have the right to obtain. This discrimination disproportionately impacts young, poor and rural women.
2. The right to life, health and integrity (political constitution, art. 11, 12, 43 and 49), by failing to recognize the effects the total criminalization of abortion has on the life, health and integrity of women.
3. The right to dignity, reproductive autonomy and the free development of personhood (political constitution, preamble and art. 1, 16 and 42), by obligating women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term - in the case of rape from the beginning of the pregnancy, or in other cases, when serious fetal impairments, incompatible with life outside the womb, are found to exist - including when it goes against the woman's best interest for her physical, psychological or emotional well-being. These rights are also violated in that women are treated as "reproductive machines," ignoring the right to determine their own lives.

AWID: If successful, how do you think the result could resonate within the region? Could it affect other countries with similar restrictive laws on abortion like Chile and El Salvador?

MR: I am positive it will. There is momentum in the region about the liberalization of anti-abortion laws. There are projects in many countries going on that have good chances of success. This momentum will be more visible as the projects advance, and it will be undeniable when successes start coming. All these will give advocates from other countries like the ones you mention, tools and inspiration to continue the struggle. This is a global movement that has no frontiers. It is time that the rights provisions written in international human rights treaties come to life and start having a real impact on women´s lives. That is the judge's role and women´s rights activists must give them the chance to do so by bringing challenges to the courts.

One woman dis-information campaign? I think not. If this is dis-information please bring it on.

____________

I mentioned in last week's review about a possible lawsuit against the FDA by the state of Wisconsin over the FDA Plan B debacle. Here's fresh news on that story, link provided to me by Madman.

Contraceptive suit gets OK

Governor gives Lautenschlager authority to take FDA to court

Madison - Gov. Jim Doyle on Thursday gave Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager authority to sue the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for delaying approval of over-the-counter sales for emergency contraception.

"FDA's postponement in making a decision is the result of politics, not science, and negatively impacts the health of women," Doyle says in a letter to Lautenschlager.

:::snip:::

Some consider the drug's effect to be a chemical abortion. Advocates for the drug have said that women should have access to a full range of health care options.

:::snip:::

"In this case, we have seen the FDA ignore the advice of its own science and the advice of the scientific community and instead has politicized what should be a non-political process," she (Lautenschlager) said. "In doing so, they have effectively taken away American women's right to obtain access to what is a highly effective means of birth control."

The lawsuit has not be filed yet, and there is no guarantee that it will be. But it appears that the way has been cleared to do so and that's excellent news.

I also wish to note that once again we see the "some consider the drug an abortifacient" misinformation used. I suppose if we look hard enough we might also factually say "some consider the earth flat". Neither of these statements are scientifically proven, by the way. This one is: Biomedicine: Emergency Contraception's Mode of Action Clarified.

____________

One of the advantages to the reader of a digest-style blog post on a specific subject, such as this Week in Review, is one of efficiency. I suppose one of the disadvantages is sometimes a story happens so fast that by the time you begin to report on the event, the event has already concluded. The following story is a case in point, but I'm happy to say that the conclusion is an advantage to the women of Massachusetts.

Earlier in the week, on December 7th, I had thought I would be reporting this:

Private hospitals exempt on pill law

The (Massachusetts) state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception.

The decision, which is likely to result in a legal challenge, reignites an issue that has been fiercely debated on Beacon Hill: who should have access to emergency contraception and which hospitals, pharmacies, and medical centers should be required to provide it.

The ruling set off criticism from reproductive rights advocates and other backers of the new law, who believe rape victims should have wide access to what they say is a safe, effective means to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But it heartened conservatives and Catholic groups, who oppose the morning-after pill because they believe it amounts to abortion in some cases.

The ruling, which the department plans to outline to hospital CEOs in a letter this week, says the new law applies to all hospitals but does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately-run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.

And here we come to the problem with a weekly digest. Only one day later, December 8th we find out that so much "hell" was raised at the unfairness of the exemption that the following has occured:

No Mass. Hospital Exempt From Emergency Contraception Law

BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans Thursday to exempt Roman Catholic and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.

Romney had initially backed regulations proposed earlier this week by his public health commissioner, Paul Cote Jr., who said the new law conflicted with an older law barring the state from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or information.

The Republican governor, who is considering a run for president in 2008, said at a news conference Thursday morning that he asked his legal advisers to review the matter after members of both parties criticized the regulations. He said the lawyers determined that the new law superseded the old law and that all hospitals should be required to offer the so-called "morning after pill."

"On that basis I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said.

"I think it's, in my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape," he added.

If you read the first story critically you'll get the sense that the Governor was possibly the prime mover behind Department of Public Health exemption and was attempting to undermine the law. However reading the second story, published a day later, you might get a completely different sense of Romney's position, a false sense by my way of thinking. Lets state the facts. The Legislature of Massachusetts passed this law this past summer, Romney vetoed it, the Legislature then overroad his veto. But he's still trying his best to undermine the law and he's gotten burned on it politically. The will of the people is quite clear in this matter. Romney is no supporter of women's reproductive rights.

I also sadly have to point out that in each of the two stories Ive referenced above, one by the AP and one by the Boston Globe, we see the "some consider the drug an abortifacient" statement made.

____________

Ohio news

Federal Panel Hears Arguments On Ohio Abortion Pill Law

CINCINNATI -- An Ohio law goes too far by limiting use of the abortion pill RU-486 within seven weeks of a woman's pregnancy because it does not provide exceptions where a woman's health or life is at risk, attorneys for Planned Parenthood groups in Ohio argued Wednesday.

"The law doesn't further the state's interest in women's health," attorney Nicole Berner told a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel didn't say when it would rule.

The state is challenging U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott's preliminary order barring it from implementing the law restricting use of RU-486 to women no more than seven weeks pregnant. She said in September 2004 that the plaintiffs -- three regional Planned Parenthood groups in Ohio, Preterm of Cleveland and two private practitioners -- likely would win at trial.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of mifepristone -- known as RU-486 -- in 2000 for women who want a nonsurgical abortion, but recommended that it be limited to within seven weeks of pregnancy.

The groups claim the drug is safe beyond that time, and that Ohio is the only state to interpret the guidelines so literally.

Assistant Attorney General Anne Berry Strait argued Wednesday that Dlott applied incorrect legal standards and wrongly shifted the burden of proof to the state in making her ruling. She asked the appeals court panel to tell Dlott what standards to use.

Moiv says, "Using Mifeprex only under 7 weeks isn't based on any medical consideration; that limit was just an arbitrary cutoff for the FDA trials. It works exactly the same at 9 weeks as at 7, and they use mifepristone in French hospitals well into the 2nd trimester."

____________

Many of you may remember the Oct. 25th, 2005 letter to a candidate for Governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, written by Dr. Warren Hern of the Boulder Abortion Clinic. For those of you who haven't had a chance to read it yet it's worth the time spent doing so. Bill Ritter is an anti-choice Democrat and Dr. Hern takes him to task for that in the letter.

The following is from The Colorado Statesman, Vol. 106, No. 47 Denver, CO Nov. 25, 2005. This quote, excerpted from an article by Jerry Kopel, is not available online.

Dr. Warren Hern has indicated his strong opposition to Ritter in copies of letters sent to Democratic leadership based on Ritter s position that 'as governor, he would veto a bill banning abortion completely, but would sign a bill that outlaws abortion except for rape and incest or to save the life'? of the pregnant woman.

Those letters will likely appear before the general public if Ritter is a candidate in the Democratic primary election and would certainly be made available to every delegate to the state convention.

:::snip:::

I have casually asked a number of persons whom I consider to be 'yellow dog'? politically active Democratic women. If the Democratic candidate is a yellow dog, you still vote for him or her. These women will not vote for Ritter in a primary and if he is the candidate, they will skip the line for the governor s race or vote for a third party governor candidate.

If Ritter expects to pick up Republican leaning voters on the issue of abortion or law enforcement, why would they pick Ritter when they can vote for a Republican voicing support for the same issues?

I suspect that some Democrat from the state legislature will enter the race for governor...

Dr Hern's letter has also stirred interest in Candidate Ritter by at least one local democratic organization, the Elbert County Dems. They've posted Dr. Hern's letter on their website along with a set of questions, Elbert Democrats - Letter to Ritter (PDF link), that they've sent to Candidate Ritter.

Here are our questions:

1. Has Dr. Hern correctly characterized your positions on these matters?

2. If the answer to #1 is no, or if Dr. Hern failed to describe all aspects of nuances of your positions, please state them in detail.

3. If it is correct to say that as governor you would sign a bill which would outlaw abortions in situations in which they can now be lawfully obtained would you:

(a) Propose specific legislation to achieve this goal; or

(b) Use your position as governor to seek to influence votes on such legislation?

4. Please describe the outlines of an emergency contraception bill you would be willing to sign into law.

5. Should low income women in Colorado have access to publicly funded abortions under the same circumstances in which the procedure may be lawfully obtained by other women?

6. If your answer to #5 is no, under what circumstances, if any, should low income women have access to publicly funded abortions?

7. I am told that during your visit to Elbert County last August you stated that in a Ritter administration Colorado would remain a pro-choice state. If any of your previous responses indicate that as governor you would approve legislation narrowing the circumstances under which abortions are currently available in Colorado what was the rationale underlying your statement that Colorado would remain a pro-choice state?

8. If the United States Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade during your term as governor would this development change your responses to any of the above questions?

This is an excellent set of questions. The Elbert County Dems say that they'll be posting Ritter's reply on their website. Dr. Hern has done women's rights a service by publishing his letter publicly.

____________

Here's a feature from the Dec. 12th issue of the New York Magazine

The Abortion Capital of America

As the pro-life movement intensifies nationwide, New York contemplates its history and future as a refuge.

Over the past twenty years, while legislatures have circumscribed access to abortion in state after state, especially for the poor and the young, New York has remained an island of unrestricted abortion rights. Medicaid pays for abortions for low-income women. Teenagers don t need a parent s permission to have an abortion. There are no 24-hour waiting periods. Thirty-four major clinics in New York City each perform more than 400 abortions per year.

New York becomes more pro-choice every year. After years of electoral free fall, the New York Right to Life Party failed to win enough votes in 2002 to stay on the ballot. The party doesn t even have a Website anymore. The New York Right to Life Committee, which founded the national anti-abortion movement in 1967, hasn t had a legislative victory in years. No pro-life candidate can win statewide office in New York. Ambitious Republicans climbing toward the governor s mansion, like George Pataki, and now John Faso, hastily ditch their pro-life pasts. New York City s mayor is one of the most pro-choice politicians in the country.

In short, New York is the abortion capital of America.

The United States is slowly turning into two places when it comes to abortion. In one, easy access to the procedure is being eroded by regulations, while conservative legislators dream up new restrictions, waiting periods, and consent laws. In the other, abortion is accessible, inexpensive'