Healthcare Prof:

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on Thursday against an Oklahoma state law (SB 1878) that demands a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound and requires doctors to describe the image, including various dimensions of the fetus, while the woman faces the screen, the AP/New York Times reports. The suit was filed in Oklahoma County District Court on behalf of Nova Health Systems. The law is scheduled to go into effect Nov. 1 (AP/New York Times, 10/11). Gov. Brad Henry (D) vetoed the law, which combines several antiabortion measures, in April, but the state Legislature overrode the veto (Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 4/18).

CRR alleges that the requirement violates a woman’s right to privacy, endangers women’s wellness and assaults dignity, the AP/Times reports. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Oklahoma would be the fourth state to require girls seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds. While the other three states — Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi — require that the ultrasound images be made available towards the patient, Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at Guttmacher, said the Oklahoma law’s requirement that females view the ultrasound images is unique. Sen. Todd Lamb (R), who introduced the measure, said that supporters of the law hoped the legislation would decrease the number of abortions performed in the state (AP/New York Times, 10/11).

Related Editorial on State Ballot Initiatives Restricting Abortion Rights

Opponents of reproductive rights have “once again” put measures on ballots in November that could “violate women’s privacy and threaten their health” and, if approved, “become a weapon in the right-wing campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade,” a New York Times editorial says. Voters “should not be fooled” by the initiatives, the editorial says, adding that a proposal in South Dakota that would ban abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman was “drafted to make it nearly impossible to get an abortion, even during the first trimester of pregnancy.” The initiative is “clearly unconstitutional” and part of the “underlying agenda” to challenge Roe, the editorial says.

According to the Times, a Colorado initiative that would redefine the term “person” in the state constitution to include a fertilized egg “carries broad implications, ranging from harmful to downright ridiculous” and “could ban widely used forms of contraception, curtail medical research involving embryos, criminalize necessary medical care and shutter fertility clinics.” The editorial also says voters should reject a “damaging” California proposal, known as Proposition 4, that would require parental notification for minors seeking an abortion (New York Times, 10/13).

Summaries of additional coverage with the Colorado and California initiatives appear below.

~ California: The San Francisco Chronicle on Monday examined Proposition 4, an initiative that would amend the state’s constitution to require physicians to notify parents, guardians or alternative adults 48 hours just before providing abortion services to minors. This year’s initiative is similar to two previous versions rejected by voters but it expands the liability of health care providers and adds a limited option to allow notification of a designated adult. A recent Field Poll found that 49% of likely voters support Proposition 4, with 41% in opposition towards the measure and 10% undecided. Barbara Alby, a former state legislator who was involved in drafting the measure, said, “It is unbelievable that a young girl can go through this surgical procedure without the oversight of a parent or other responsible adult.” Opponents say that Proposition 4 could endanger minors’ wellness and is intended to erode abortion rights. “This initiative doesn’t work within the real world,” Kathy Kneer, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said, adding, “It will put vulnerable teens at risk, those who don’t have parents they can talk to” (Fernandez, San Francisco Chronicle, 10/13).

~ Colorado: The Associated Press on Monday examined how some with the “most prominent adversaries” of a Colorado ballot initiative that would define a fertilized egg as a person under the state constitution are abortion-rights opponents, including the Catholic church and some national antiabortion groups (Associated Press, 10/13). Amendment 48 would amend the state constitution to define “any human being from the moment of fertilization” as a “person” for purposes of the state’s constitutional provisions “relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law” (Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 10/9). Both supporters and opponents of the initiative believe it likely would “compel judicial review of federally guaranteed abortion rights,” the Linked Press reports. Jennifer Kraska, executive director with the Colorado Catholic Conference, said that although the church believes that life begins at conception, church leaders fear that the amendment could lead to a judicial reaffirmation of abortion rights. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D), who opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest or medical emergency, is against the amendment, which he has said would create a “legal nightmare” within the state. In addition, some physicians are concerned they could be considered guilty of murder for disposing of fertilized eggs as part of in-vitro fertilization procedures (Wyatt, Connected Press, 10/13).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You are able to view the entire Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Day-to-day Women’s Wellness Policy Report is really a cost-free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.