Dog Articles, Puppy Articles   Pet Articles | Free Dog Articles | Free Cat Articles

Healthcare Prof:

Article Opinions:1 posts
Two New York Times editorials examine the existing “wars” over abortion within the states and within the federal government. Also, Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup addresses potential court challenges to state abortion legislation.

~ The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill: The House Republican-backedbill (HR 3) “is so broad that it could block insurance coverage for abortions for countless American ladies,” the editorial states. According to the editorial, the bill “would bar outright the use of federal subsidies to buy any insurance that covers abortion, properly beyond” the ban on federal funding for abortion coverage within the new insurance exchanges. The editorial adds that the bill would prohibit tax credits for small businesses that present insurance to their employees from being utilised to buy wellness plans covering abortion and also would prohibit individuals who buy their own well being insurance from claiming a tax deduction for premiums of wellness plans covering abortion or the cost of an abortion. Further, men and women who use tax-preferred well being savings accounts would not be able to pay for an abortion with out paying taxes, the editorial says. The editorial calls the legislation and other efforts to restrict abortion access “far far more extreme” than other legislation proposed at the federal level, adding, “Lawmakers who otherwise rail against big government have made it 1 of their highest priorities to take the decision about a legal medical procedure out with the hands of individuals and turn it more than to the government” (New York Times, 1/29).

~ The Two Abortion Wars: State Battles More than Roe v. Wade: An increase inside the number of governors and legislatures that are “solidly anti-abortion” considerably raises the prospect of “extreme efforts to undermine abortion access with Big Brother measures that require physicians to read scripts about fetal development and offer ultrasound images, and that impose mandatory waiting periods or create other unnecessary regulations,” the editorial states. It specifically notes two efforts by antiabortion-rights activists — bans on health insurance coverage of abortion and on abortion later in pregnancy. On the latter problem, even though “[r]eigning Supreme Court precedent” restricts the government from banning abortion prior to what is considered viability — 22 to 26 weeks’ gestation — a brand new Nebraska law (LB 1103) challenges the “viability standard” by banning abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation, the editorial states. The objective with the Nebraska law and “[c]opycat laws” in other states would be to “provide the Supreme Court’s conservative majority with a brand new vehicle for further tampering with Roe v. Wade‘s insight that the choice about regardless of whether to terminate a pregnancy is best left to ladies and their doctors pre-viability.” The editorial concludes, “Americans who support women’s reproductive rights and oppose this kind of outrageous government intrusion need to respond with rising force and clarity to this real and immediate danger” (New York Times, 1/29).

~ In a letter towards the editor, Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup writes, “Anti-choice lawmakers across the country might be heralding a new era in which they plan to mount aggressive campaigns to limit abortion,” but those that oppose abortion rights “won’t necessarily have the last word.” She continues that within the last couple years, “anti-choice state legislators have pushed especially ambitious agendas, enacting some with the most extreme anti-choice legislation in current memory.” Nonetheless, “[j]udges have declared these laws unconstitutional” time following time, she says, because “[t]hey violate women’s rights by profoundly intruding on their private medical decisions and by imposing trumped-up regulations on abortion providers so they can no longer realistically present women’s services” (Northup, New York Times, 1/29).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is actually a free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Females & Families. All rights reserved.