Solucion impotencia

A Michigan man accused of fatally shooting an antiabortionrights protester outside a high school last month has been deemed incompetent to stand trial and committed to the Michigan Department of Mental Health, the New York Times reports.

Harlan Drake is charged with fatally shooting James Pouillion on Sept. 11 in what is believed to be the first slaying of someone protesting abortion rights. On Wednesday, Judge Terrance Dignan of the 66th District Court in Corunna, Mich., ordered Drake to begin psychiatric treatment. If rendered competent, a preliminary examination would be set to determine whether he could stand trial. Dignan wrote that “there is a substantial probability” that Drake, if provided a course of treatment, will be competent to stand trial, according to chief assistant prosecutor Sara Edwards (Chapman, New York Times, 10/1).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Reactions were mixed on Wednesday to Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (DMont.) release of his panels health reform bill, the Washington Post reports. Although House Democratic leaders and some liberal groups were critical of the measure, some influential players particularly industry groups “held their firepower,” according to the Post. The muted reaction from industry which has been highly critical of the House bills and another Senate bill is perhaps the “best evidence” that the Finance Committee bill has a positive future, according to the Post. In an attempt to quell attacks from interest groups, the Obama administration has agreed to several deals in which the health industry would make financial concessions in exchange for the prospect of new customers. The Baucus bill takes a similar approach (Connolly, Washington Post, 9/17).

House Democratic leaders said that although they are pleased to see the Senate moving forward, they feel that Baucus plan makes too many conservative concessions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCalif.) said in a statement that the House reform bill (HR 3200) “clearly does more” than Baucus bill “to make coverage affordable for more Americans.” Pelosi also reiterated her support for a public health insurance plan option to provide competition with private insurers, a proposal that is not included in the Senate Finance Committee bill. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Charles Rangel (DN.Y.) said that he is “pleased to see movement, any movement out of the Senate,” adding that “[w]e cannot do anything unless we have something come out of Senate.” Rangel said his staff has been working to blend all three House health reform bills (Roth, CQ Today, 9/16).

Abortion Coverage Under Finance Committee Bill

The Senate Finance Committee bill would prohibit federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment to the womans life, the AP/MSNBC reports. The bill would prevent abortion coverage from being included in a minimum benefits package in proposed health insurance “exchanges” where consumers could shop for coverage. The plans in the exchange could include offer abortion coverage as long as no government subsidies paid for it. Instead, abortion coverage would be funded through member premiums, which would be segregated from federal money (Werner/AlonsoZaldivar, AP/MSNBC, 9/16).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has “carved out a much different position” on health care reform than other prominent antiabortionrights groups, most of which have “spent the last month pummeling Democratic health care reform proposals over abortion coverage,” according to U.S. News & World Report columnist Dan Gilgoff. For several decades, USCCB supported universal health care on the argument that health care is a basic human right. Richard Doerflinger, associate director of USCCBs Secretariat for ProLife Activities, said, “We think the right to have basic health care is corollary to the right to life,” adding, “And that society has some obligation to help provide it.”

According to Gilgoff, the groups antiabortionrights stance and support for universal health care have helped make the bishops and the Catholic community in general a “key swing constituency” in the health reform debate. If President Obama and congressional Democrats are able to address the Catholic Churchs concerns on abortion coverage in the health overhaul, the bishops could become a “powerful ally” in the fight for reform, Gilgoff writes. Conversely, if lawmakers are unable to calm the bishops fears, the churchs opposition to health reform could “help bring down the whole effort,” he says.

USCCB has become increasingly vocal in recent weeks in its claims that Democrats proposals would include governmentfunded abortion. In an August letter to House members, Justin Rigali Philadelphia archbishop and head of USCCBs Committee on ProLife Activities claimed that the House health reform bill (HR 3200) is “seriously deficient” in maintaining the status quo on federal abortion policy. The letter also called a proposed ban on federal funding for abortion in health reform “an illusion.” USCCB recently launched a Web site on health reform that emphasizes its concerns about abortion. Several other Catholic groups, including Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic Health Association, have placed disclaimers on their sites noting that although they have not backed a specific proposal, they remain committed to “health reform that respects the life and dignity of every person, from conception to natural death.”

About 20 House Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (DMich.), have warned party leaders that they will not support health reform legislation in its current form because of abortionrelated issues. Meanwhile, some progressive Catholics object to the House bill because it gives the HHS secretary authority to decide if abortion services should be covered under the public plan option. The bishops also want subsidized health plans for lowincome workers to include a separate rider for participants who want abortion coverage. Gilgoff reports that abortionrights supporters likely will object to such a rider because many women who already have insurance that covers abortion services would lose the coverage.

Some liberal Catholic advocates claim that the churchs concerns about abortion in health reform are distracting people from the larger message of providing universal health care. Gilgoff claims that passing health reform legislation despite the objections of Catholics and USCCB “would have political costs.” However, “opposing the final health care reform plan on abortion grounds could have political consequences for the church, too,” he adds (Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Report, 9/14).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

“Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Tea Partyers at town halls and many GOP members of Congress have been frothing over the idea that supposedly under Obamas public plan, government will be mandating decisions about your health care,” Arthur Caplan director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania writes in a Chicago Tribune opinion piece. He asks, “So why is it that when the subject is abortion and state officials stick their noses right into the practice of medicine, we dont hear a peep from the same crowd about the evil government actually playing a role in how medicine is practiced?”

According to Caplan, 13 states “have laws on the books mandating that doctors take pictures of fetuses carried by pregnant women seeking an abortion.” He adds that the laws “lay out exactly what a doctor must do to get informed consent from a woman, even if the woman and her doctor want nothing to do with taking an ultrasound.” Caplan continues, “Laws mandating how doctors and patients must interact make no provision for women of different ages or for the circumstances under which a woman may seek an abortion.”

Caplan notes that Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson recently struck down a 2008 state law requiring doctors to perform ultrasound on pregnant women seeking abortion. He writes, “The law she struck down would have required any woman seeking an abortion to have a picture taken of her fetus by means of an ultrasound and then to have the doctor describe in detail the image to the woman even if she did not want to hear this information.” According to Caplan, “Robertson tossed out this law on a technicality,” as the law was “a mishmash of items concerning abortion rather [than] a single focused piece of legislation.”

Caplan continues, “It is very clear that the point of [these] laws is to discourage women from having abortions.” It is “also very clear that government bureaucrats are telling doctors and patients precisely what to do,” he writes, adding, “They are intervening directly in the practice of medicine.” He writes, “Yet no one among the ranks of those yelling about the heavy hand of government allegedly present in the Obama plan has said a word about the evil of the Oklahoma law or any of the other state laws where the Legislature and bureaucrats are ordering doctors to tell their patients what these nondoctors want.” Caplan concludes, “When it suits their purposes, those who claim to be horrified that government might play a role in getting you health insurance are hypocritically tolerant of a government bureaucrat telling your doctor what to do” (Caplan, Chicago Tribune, 9/6).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Although there is growing awareness of the deceptive tactics antiabortionrights crisis pregnancy centers use to restrict abortion access, CPCs also have a lesserknown “broader agenda, … not only to induce women to choose life but to choose adoption,” The Nation reports. According to The Nation, CPCs often pressure women with unintended pregnancies “to give the child to a family with better resources,” a strategy that has become part of the broader Christian evangelical cause in recent years. Critics of CPCs adoption practices claim it is “an industry that coercively separates willing biological parents from their offspring, artificially producing orphans for Christian parents to adopt, rather than helping birth parents care for wanted children.”

The Nation examined how CPCs convince women with unintended pregnancies to relinquish their infants for adoption by isolating them from friends and family and matching the “birth mothers” with adoptive parents who pay between $14,500 and $25,500 for an adoption. The article also draws parallels between CPCs adoption practices and maternity homes for single, pregnant women during the socalled “Baby Scoop Era” of 1945 to 1973. During this period, at least 1.5 million unmarried women in the U.S. relinquished their children for adoption under “frequently brutal” coercion, The Nation reports. The Baby Scoop Era ended with the legalization of abortion in 1973, which also led to a drop in adoption rates from 19.2% of white, unmarried pregnant women in 1972 to 1.7% in 1995.

However, The Nation reports that the “rise of the religious right and the founding of CPCs” coincided with a decline in adoption rate. Many CPCs offer vulnerable women scholarships, financial assistance and housing in exchange for agreeing to adoption. Ann Fessler, author of “The Girls Who Went Away The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade,” said, “Part of the big picture for a young woman whos pregnant is that there are people holding our their hand, but the price of admission is giving up your child.” She added, “If you decide to keep your child, its as if youre lost in the system, whereas people fight over you if youre ready to surrender. Theres an organization motivated by a cause and profit.”

The Nation article profiles a South Carolina woman with an unintended pregnancy who sought out a CPC for support after deciding against abortion. The CPC, run by Bethany Christian Services, moved the woman into a “shepherding family” home, isolating her from family and friends, and required her to attend counseling sessions designed to convince her to choose adoption. After the birth, her CPC counselor told her that open adoptions were illegal in the state and that if she did not sign the relinquishment papers, she would end up homeless and lose the infant anyway. Later, when the woman tried to contact Bethanys postadoption counselor, she reportedly was told, “Youre the one who spread your legs and got pregnant out of wedlock. You have no right to grieve for this baby” (Joyce, The Nation, 8/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson on Tuesday struck down a state law (SB 1878) that required doctors to perform ultrasounds and provide women with detailed information about the image before performing abortions, the Washington Post reports. Robertson ruled that the law, which also included other abortionrelated measures, violated a state constitutional provision that laws address only one subject.

Although 13 states have ultrasound laws, Oklahomas was the strictest in the country, according to the Post. It required any woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound and listen to a description of the image in detail, including organs and extremities, even if she objected (Lydersen, Washington Post, 8/19). The law was passed in 2008 but never went into effect because of legal action (AP/Google News, 8/18).

A clinic in Tulsa, Okla., run by Nova Health System, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, filed the lawsuit, which claimed that the law violated the state constitutions “singlesubject” rule and infringed on womens privacy rights, violated their dignity and endangered their health (Washington Post, 8/19). The suit also said that the law was unconstitutionally vague and was not clear about what doctors should tell women (AP/Google News, 8/18).

CRR attorney Stephanie Toti said that the law could have forced the Nova clinic and two others in the state to close. “We hope this sends a message to legislatures around the country that the constitution matters,” Toti said, adding, “They cant trample on anybodys constitutional rights when passing these restrictive laws” (Washington Post, 8/19). According to Toti, the ultrasound requirement “takes away a patients choice about whether or not to view an ultrasound, and it requires physicians to provide information to their patients that the physicians do not believe is medically necessary. Its an affront to womens autonomy and decisionmaking power, and its also an intrusion to the physicianpatient relationship” (AP/Google News, 8/18).

Other provisions in the law would have required doctors to follow FDA labeling when administering medical abortion drugs. According to Toti, doctors usually have the power to prescribe the drugs offlabel, and placing such limits would counter recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It also would have required signs in clinics telling women that they cannot be coerced into abortions, as well as protection for employees who oppose abortion (Washington Post, 8/19). In addition, the law would have prohibited wrongful life lawsuits in certain circumstances (AP/Google News, 8/18).

State Sen. Todd Lamb (R), who sponsored the bill, said that he likely will ask Oklahomas attorney general to appeal Robertsons ruling. Mike Jestes, executive director of the Oklahoma Family Policy Council, said that if the courts uphold Robertsons ruling, the various parts of the bill would be introduced as separate pieces of legislation (Washington Post, 8/19).

Teresa Collett, special assistant attorney general for Oklahoma, said that she will meet with state officials to discuss a possible appeal. She added that the law clearly states what doctors are required to tell women about the ultrasound, including the dimensions of the fetus, and the presence of any cardiac activity, arms, legs or internal organs. “Common medical practice is to require doctors to provide patients with information thats necessary for them to make informed decisions,” Collett said, adding, “We dont think abortion should be any exception” (AP/Google News, 8/18).

Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute, said that antiabortionrights groups began advocating for ultrasound laws in the 1990s, when seven such laws were passed. Antiabortionrights groups have increased such efforts in recent years, Nash said, adding, “They really have come back and tried to use the issue of ultrasound to deter women from getting an abortion. Were really seeing a trend now.” According to Guttmacher, because ultrasounds are considered medically unnecessary during the first trimester, when almost 90% of abortions take place, such laws are a “veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion” (Washington Post, 8/19).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

In the wake of the shooting death of abortion provider George Tiller, physician LeRoy Carhart says he plans to open a facility in Kansas that will provide abortion services later in pregnancy, the AP/Wichita Eagle reports.

Carhart who operates an abortion clinic in Bellevue, Neb. is one of the four physicians who performed abortions at Tillers Wichita clinic before it closed following his death on May 31. Carhart said that Wichita would be his “main choice” for a location and that his attorney has spoken with the Tiller familys lawyer. He added that it is too soon to make a formal announcement about the location.

Following Carharts statements, the antiabortion group Operation Rescue said that it is launching a “Keep It Closed” campaign and will protest at Carharts clinic in Nebraska from Aug. 2829 (AP/Wichita Eagle, 8/4).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The American Civil Liberties Union has launched an effort to offer nocost legal advice about an Illinois law requiring providers to notify an unmarried minors parents prior to performing an abortion, the AP/KWQC reports. The law, which took effect on Tuesday, was enacted in 1995. However, enforcement of the law was delayed by a series of court challenges. It requires that either a parent, grandparent, stepparent living in the home or a legal guardian be notified prior to a minor obtaining an abortion, although judges are permitted to grant exceptions. Abortionrights opponents claim the law will ensure that parents are consulted so their children “arent forced into abortions,” according to the AP/KWQC.

In response to the law, ACLU has created a tollfree phone line and a Web site to assist girls seeking information about the judicial bypass process. Lorie Chaiten of the Illinois ACLU said the group also has been training lawyers to assist minors (AP/KWQC, 8/4).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The Montana ProLife Coalition last week launched a campaign seeking a state ballot initiative that would propose defining “personhood” in the state constitution as “from the beginning of the biological development of that human being,” the Great Falls Tribune reports. A required 48,674 signatures are needed to place the initiative on the November 2010 ballot. Abortionrights opponents failed to collect enough signatures for a similar proposal last year. Former state Rep. Rick Jore, a member of the Constitution Party, on Wednesday submitted three versions of the proposal to the Montana Secretary of States Office. Jore also authored last years proposal.

Allyson Hagen, executive director for NARAL ProChoice Montana, said, “Whether or not they get it on the ballot, I think that the vast majority of Montanans are going to oppose an extreme initiative like this one.” She added, “I think Montanans believe very strongly in the right to privacy and [that] the decisions regarding pregnancy should be between a woman and her doctor, not with the Legislature or the government.”

Abortionrights opponents last year tried and failed to put similar proposals before voters in Georgia and Oregon, and Colorado voters rejected a similar measure by a 3 to 1 margin. Hagen said that because the president supports abortion rights and Democrats have a majority in Congress, “antiabortion groups are looking to make movements in the states, feeling powerless at the federal level.” Earlier this year, two bills (SB 406, SB 46) in the Montana Legislature that sought to grant constitutional rights to embryos failed to make it out of committee. The North Dakota Legislature recently rejected a similar proposal (Adams, Great Falls Tribune, 7/2).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The following summarizes news coverage on womens healthrelated legislation in Arizona and North Carolina.

~ Arizona The Arizona Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee on Wednesday voted 43 to approve a bill (S.B. 1206) that would place several restrictions on abortion rights and allow pharmacists or other health care providers to refuse to distribute emergency contraception based on religious or moral objections, the AP/Arizona Daily Star reports. The state House passed an identical bill in March. The measure would impose a 24hour waiting period for women seeking abortion procedures and mandate that doctors inform women about risks and alternatives. It also would toughen an exisiting parental consent requirement for minors seeking abortion. The bill requires an inperson consultation before the 24hour waiting period, which would increase costs for women who are forced to travel to a clinic twice, according to Planned Parenthood of Arizona President Bryan Howard. The Legislature approved bills with similar restrictions in recent years, but the measures were vetoed by thenGov. Janet Napolitano (D). Current Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has said she supports mandatory disclosures and a 24hour waiting period (Billeaud, AP/Arizona Daily Star, 6/10).

~ North Carolina The North Carolina Senate Mental Health and Youth Services Committee this week approved a bill (S. 221) that would require all public school systems to offer information on the use of contraceptives to students in grades seven through nine, the AP/Raleigh News & Observer reports. The information would be presented as part of a larger reproductive health education program that would maintain the abstinenceonly education curricula currently taught at nearly all of the states 115 school districts. Parents would be permitted to prevent children from participating in the classes with contraceptive information. The measure is a revised version of state Houseapproved legislation (H.B. 88) that would have required schools to teach two separate abstinenceonly and comprehensive sex education tracks. If the full state Senate passes the new bill, the two chambers will meet to negotiate a compromise (Robertson, AP/Raleigh News & Observer, 6/11).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.