Press Releases https://reproductiverights.org/taxonomy/term/114/all en California District Court Joins other Federal Courts in Vacating the Trump Administration’s “Denial of Care” Rule in Full https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/denial-of-care-rule-struck-down <span>California District Court Joins other Federal Courts in Vacating the Trump Administration’s “Denial of Care” Rule in Full</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Tue, 11/19/2019 - 10:00</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><strong><span><span>(PRESS RELEASE) </span></span></strong><span><span>Today, a California federal judge became the third judge in the U.S. to strike down the Trump Administration’s Denial of Care rule in its entirety. U.S. District Judge William Alsup also upheld the third party standing of reproductive rights physicians to bring cases on behalf of their patients and applied that doctrine to cover physicians bringing claims on behalf of LGBTQ patients, explaining that the rights of physicians and plaintiffs in these contexts are closely intertwined.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The vacated rule would empower an immensely broad array of healthcare workers, including receptionists and ambulance drivers, to turn away and refuse to serve patients based on moral or religious grounds. Patients seeking services like contraception, abortion, or gender affirming care would be most impacted by the rule. The lawsuit was filed by the County of Santa Clara, the </span></span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/"><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></a><span>, Lambda Legal, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Mayer Brown LLP.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>In his ruling, Judge Alsup wrote: </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span><span>“The New Rule sets forth new definitions of statutory terms that conflict with the statutes themselves—expansive definitions that would upset the balance drawn by Congress between protecting conscientious objectors versus facilitating the uninterrupted provision of health care to Americans.”</span></span></strong></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span><span>“Under the rule, a clerk scheduling surgeries for an operating room could refuse to reserve slots for abortions and sterilizations. So could an employee who merely sterilizes and places surgical instruments or ensures that the supply cabinets in the operating room are fully stocked in preparation for an abortion. For the reasons already stated, the Church Amendment was never intended to apply to those who have no role in the actual performance of the abortion or sterilization. Neither those who schedule abortions nor those who prepare an operating room assist in the performance of such a procedure under the Church Amendment.”</span></span></strong></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span><span>“Doctors and their patients have a confidential relationship, especially when it comes to asserting rights related to invasive procedures and treatments. Furthermore, most of the medical procedures at issue here such as abortions, gender-affirming surgery, and HIV treatments cannot be safely secured without the aid of a physician.  The rights of the individual physician plaintiffs and their patients here are thus closely intertwined.” </span></span></strong></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span><span>“For the foregoing reasons, this order holds the rule is “not in accordance with law,” by reason of conflict with the underlying statutes and is in conflict with the balance struck by Congress in harmonizing protection of conscience objections vis-a-vis the uninterrupted flow of health care to Americans. When a rule is so saturated with error, as here, there is no point in trying to sever the problematic provisions. The whole rule must go.”</span></span></strong></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Earlier this month, federal judges in New York and Washington also vacated the entire rule in separate cases. Dozens of states, municipalities, providers, and advocacy groups have challenged the rule through various lawsuits around the country. The lawsuits emphasize that this confusing policy would incentivize health care providers to eliminate reproductive healthcare and LGBTQ care altogether, leaving millions across the country without access to critical health care, including in regions that might otherwise prioritize maintaining access to this essential care.  The Rule is especially dangerous because it has no emergency exception.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“We are grateful the Court recognized the unchecked discrimination against women and LGBTQ patients that could occur under this rule, even in medical emergencies,” said <strong>Genevieve Scott, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights.</strong> “Discrimination in any context is egregious, but allowing someone’s religious or moral views to effectively veto a patient’s medical choice could have deadly consequences. It is out of line with any reasonable understanding of law or medical ethics that a receptionist, who is not directly involved in providing medical care, could turn away patients, or that an EMT could refuse to transport a patient with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The Denial of Care Rule was issued in May by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and it applies to virtually every kind of healthcare provider.  Health care facilities risk losing all federal funding if they do not grant employees carte blanche to deny information and services.   Because the Rule is infeasible to implement, if allowed to go into effect, it would coerce many health care facilities to eliminate reproductive healthcare and LGBTQ healthcare, leaving millions across the United States without access to critical healthcare.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Plaintiffs in the case include the County of Santa Clara, which runs an extensive health and hospital system that serves as a safety-net provider for the county’s 1.9 million residents; the health providers Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center in Allentown, Pa., Center on Halsted in Chicago, Hartford GYN in Connecticut, Los Angeles LGBT Center, Mazzoni Center in Philadelphia, Trust Women Seattle and Whitman-Walker Health in Washington, D.C.; the associations AGLP, GLMA and Medical Students for Choice; and five doctors.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-cases field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Cases</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/case/country-santa-clara-vs-hhs" hreflang="en">County of Santa Clara v. HHS</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-related-content field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/court-opinion-county-santa-clara-v-hhs" hreflang="en">District Court Opinion - County of Santa Clara v. HHS</a></div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/other-barriers" hreflang="en">Other Barriers</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/access-quality-care" hreflang="en">Access to Quality Care</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:00:24 +0000 ehorwitz 58799 at https://reproductiverights.org Joint Statement issued by Center for Reproductive Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/joint-statement-on-restrictive-legislation-in-slovakia <span>Joint Statement issued by Center for Reproductive Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Mon, 11/18/2019 - 11:33</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><strong><em><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>As members of Slovakia’s parliament debate proposed legislation that, if enacted, will potentially impede women’s access to abortion services, Amnesty International, Center for Reproductive Rights, Human Rights Watch and International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network have issued the following statement:</span></span></em></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“We are deeply concerned by the current legislative attempts to roll back on the reproductive rights of the women of Slovakia.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Slovakia’s Parliament is debating new draft legislation that would require women seeking abortion </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>care to undergo mandatory ultrasound scanning, to view and obtain an ultrasound image of the </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>embryo or foetus and, where technically possible, to listen to the “heartbeat of the embryo or </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>the foetus.” </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The proposed legislation also seeks to prohibit “advertising” on abortion and to impose a </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>fine of up to €66,400 on those who order or disseminate it.<a class="see-footnote" id="footnoteref1_55x6ba2" title="Návrh poslankýň Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky Evy Smolíkovej, Magdalény Kuciaňovej a Evy Antošovej na vydanie zákona, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 576/2004 Z. z. o zdravotnej starostlivosti, službách súvisiacich s poskytovaním zdravotnej starostlivosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony, print no. 1729 (27 Sept. 2019)." href="#footnote1_55x6ba2">1</a></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>If adopted, this legislation will harm women’s health and well-being, obstruct their access to safe abortion care and violate Slovakia’s international human rights obligations.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Forcing women in Slovakia to undergo a mandatory ultrasound, view the ultrasound image and listen to the “foetal heartbeat” before abortion would undermine their privacy, personal integrity and autonomy in decision-making about health care, and would subject them to harmful stigma, humiliation and degrading treatment. It would violate the requirement that medical decision-making must be free of coercion, and that a patient’s consent to medical procedures should be given freely and voluntarily.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>There are no medical grounds whatsoever for the proposed changes. As confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), there is no medical reason for routine ultrasound prior to abortion. Instead, the WHO has underlined that women’s decisions to access abortion care should be respected and that safe abortion should be “delivered in a way that respects a woman’s dignity, guarantees her right to privacy and is sensitive to her needs and perspectives.”<a class="see-footnote" id="footnoteref2_iq3f982" title="World Health Organization, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 6, 34, 64." href="#footnote2_iq3f982">2</a></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>International human rights mechanisms have stressed that states must ensure the availability and quality of safe abortion services in line with the WHO safe abortion guidelines, including removing measures that attempt to dissuade women from accessing abortion care.<a class="see-footnote" id="footnoteref3_7zhayja" title="See, e.g., Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), para. 41, E/C.12/GC/22 (2016); Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding Observations: Hungary, para. 31(c), CEDAW/C/HUN/CO/7-8 (2013); Russian Federation, paras. 35(b), 36(b), CEDAW/C/RUS/CO/8 (2015); Slovakia, para. 31(c), CEDAW/C/SVK/CO/5-6 (2015); Macedonia, para. 38(d), CEDAW/C/MKD/CO/6 (2018); Anand Grover, Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, para. 24, U.N. Doc. A/66/254 (Aug. 3, 2011); COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Europe (2017), at 11." href="#footnote3_7zhayja">3</a></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>If this legislation is adopted, Slovakia would be the only EU member state to impose such harmful requirements on women. No other member state imposes on women a requirement to undergo </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>mandatory ultrasound for obtaining abortion care and no other EU member state requires that women view ultrasound images or listen to the “foetal heartbeat” before abortion.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Similarly, the WHO has stressed the importance of ensuring all women have access to evidence-based information about abortion and their entitlements to legal reproductive health care.<a class="see-footnote" id="footnoteref4_dpf6rue" title="World Health Organization, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 95." href="#footnote4_dpf6rue">4</a> The proposed prohibition of “advertising” on abortion would lead to restrictions on women’s ability to access evidence-based information on abortion care, and would have a chilling effect on the provision of such information by medical providers. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>International human rights mechanisms have underlined that medically unnecessary legal restrictions on the availability of evidence-based information on sexual and reproductive health, including safe and legal abortion, contradict states’ obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill women’s right to the highest attainable standard of health. They have made it clear that “[s]uch restrictions impede access to information and services, and can fuel stigma and discrimination”, and have called upon states to “[e]nsure that accurate, evidence-based information concerning abortion and its legal availability is publicly available.”<a class="see-footnote" id="footnoteref5_d1f1qk0" title="Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22, supra note 3, para. 41; Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, supra note 3, para. 65(l)." href="#footnote5_d1f1qk0">5</a></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has held that “[o]nce the legislature decides to allow abortion, it must not structure its legal framework in a way which would limit real possibilities to obtain it”<a class="see-footnote" id="footnoteref6_lgzhk84" title="Tysiąc v. Poland, No. 5410/03 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 116 (2007)." href="#footnote6_lgzhk84">6</a>, and has underscored that European states have “a positive obligation to create a procedural framework enabling a pregnant woman to exercise her right of access to lawful abortion.”<a class="see-footnote" id="footnoteref7_7kl6i1z" title="R.R. v. Poland, No. 27617/04 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 200 (2011)." href="#footnote7_7kl6i1z">7</a></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>If adopted, the proposed legislation will undermine Slovakia’s compliance with its obligations under international human rights treaties to guarantee women’s rights to health, privacy and information, to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment, and will contravene the principles of non-discrimination and equality in the enjoyment of rights. In addition, the adoption of these proposals will be contrary to the fundamental international legal principle of non-retrogression. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>International human rights mechanisms have repeatedly called on Slovakia to remove barriers to, and ensure access to, safe and legal abortion. Most recently, in October 2019, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed deep concern about this pending regressive legislation and urged Slovakia to avoid any retrogression in relation to women’s </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>sexual and reproductive health rights.<a class="see-footnote" id="footnoteref8_8mx72l5" title="Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, paras. 41-42(e), E/C.12/SVK/CO/3 (2019)." href="#footnote8_8mx72l5">8</a></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>We call on all Members of Parliament to reject this regressive legislative proposal and refrain from any further attempts to restrict reproductive rights in Slovakia.”</span></span></span></span></p> <ul class="footnotes"><li class="footnote" id="footnote1_55x6ba2"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref1_55x6ba2">1.</a> Návrh poslankýň Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky Evy Smolíkovej, Magdalény Kuciaňovej a Evy Antošovej na vydanie zákona, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 576/2004 Z. z. o zdravotnej starostlivosti, službách súvisiacich s poskytovaním zdravotnej starostlivosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony, print no. 1729 (27 Sept. 2019).</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote2_iq3f982"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref2_iq3f982">2.</a> World Health Organization, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 6, 34, 64.</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote3_7zhayja"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref3_7zhayja">3.</a> See, e.g., Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), para. 41, E/C.12/GC/22 (2016); Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding Observations: Hungary, para. 31(c), CEDAW/C/HUN/CO/7-8 (2013); Russian Federation, paras. 35(b), 36(b), CEDAW/C/RUS/CO/8 (2015); Slovakia, para. 31(c), CEDAW/C/SVK/CO/5-6 (2015); Macedonia, para. 38(d), CEDAW/C/MKD/CO/6 (2018); Anand Grover, Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, para. 24, U.N. Doc. A/66/254 (Aug. 3, 2011); COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Europe (2017), at 11.</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote4_dpf6rue"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref4_dpf6rue">4.</a> World Health Organization, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 95.</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote5_d1f1qk0"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref5_d1f1qk0">5.</a> Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22, supra note 3, para. 41; Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, supra note 3, para. 65(l).</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote6_lgzhk84"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref6_lgzhk84">6.</a> Tysiąc v. Poland, No. 5410/03 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 116 (2007).</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote7_7kl6i1z"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref7_7kl6i1z">7.</a> R.R. v. Poland, No. 27617/04 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 200 (2011).</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote8_8mx72l5"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref8_8mx72l5">8.</a> Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, paras. 41-42(e), E/C.12/SVK/CO/3 (2019).</li> </ul></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-related-content field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/joint-ngo-letter-slovakia" hreflang="en">Joint NGO letter on Slovakia </a></div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/legal-restrictions-0" hreflang="en">Legal Restrictions</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/slovakia" hreflang="en">Slovakia</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/around-world" hreflang="en">Around the World</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:33:41 +0000 ehorwitz 58797 at https://reproductiverights.org Center for Reproductive Rights Calls for a Greater Vision at ICDP+25 https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-reproductive-rights-calls-greater-vision-icdp25 <span>Center for Reproductive Rights Calls for a Greater Vision at ICDP+25</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Tue, 11/12/2019 - 11:04</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span>(PRESS RELEASE) Nairobi -- The Center for Reproductive Rights joins civil society, UN member States and UN agencies in Nairobi today to mark the 25th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) where 179 governments adopted a landmark Programme of Action which set out to empower women and girls for their sake, and for the benefit of their families, communities and nations. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>In the 25 years since the ICPD, substantial progress has been made in defining sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in international human rights law and at this important moment, the Center adds its voice to those of women and girls demanding that States are held accountable for these commitments and to their human rights obligations.  </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong>The following is the statement of <strong><span><span>Nancy Northup</span></span></strong><span>, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights: </span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong>“Since its inception, the Center for Reproductive Rights has worked towards ensuring that the ICPD commitments made by States become a reality for women and girls around the globe, including the recognition that reproductive rights are human rights. </strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong>“ICPD was a critical moment in the establishment of sexual and reproductive rights, but we are now 25 years on and it’s crucial that we look forward and demand further advancement.</strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span>“In the face of rising backlash, the rights and dignity of women and girls are increasingly under threat with dire implications.</span></strong> <strong>We must therefore ensure that maternal health care is free from disrespect and abuse. We must ensure adolescents have access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services and the ability to make decisions about their own sexual and reproductive lives. We must go to beyond ‘access to abortion where legal’ and ensure that access to safe abortion is available for those seeking to make informed decisions about their bodies. We must do this for all women and girls across the globe, including highly marginalized groups and those affected by crisis.  </strong></span></span></span></p> <p><strong><span><span><span>"The Center’s recently released <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws?country=KEN">World Abortion Law Map</a> reveals that the last 25 years have witnessed a positive global trend towards the liberalization of abortion laws. 50 countries worldwide have enacted laws that are <span>expanding the grounds under which abortion is legal. Nearly half of these countries that have liberalized their abortion laws, are in Africa. But more has to be done."</span></span></span></span></strong></p> <p><span><span><span><strong>“Today’s summit offers a moment to not only recommit to the promises of the ICPD, but to implement and build on those commitments and demand more for the women and girls whose rights were first articulated in this process 25 years ago.”</strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>xxxx</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><em><span><span>The Center for Reproductive Rights uses the power of law to advance reproductive rights as fundamental human rights around the world. Our </span></span></em><em>ground-breaking cases<span><span> before national courts, United Nations committees, and regional human rights bodies have expanded access to reproductive healthcare, including contraception, safe abortion, prenatal and obstetric care, and unbiased information. We influence the law outside the courtroom as well, documenting abuses and working with policy-makers to promote progressive measures, and fostering legal scholarship and teaching on reproductive health and human rights.</span></span></em></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/reporting-on-rights" hreflang="en">Reporting on Rights</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:04:42 +0000 ehorwitz 58793 at https://reproductiverights.org New Abortion Lawsuit Seeks to Expand Access in Oklahoma https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/new-abortion-lawsuit-seeks-expand-access-oklahoma <span>New Abortion Lawsuit Seeks to Expand Access in Oklahoma</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/08/2019 - 13:56</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">New case highlights telemedicine and advanced practice clinicians as avenues to increasing abortion access </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><span><span>(</span></span></span><span><span><span>PRESS RELEASE) </span></span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>—</span></span></span><span><span><span> Today, the </span></span></span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/"><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></a><span><span> filed <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/PLD.2019-11-08.PETITION.pdf">a lawsuit</a> challenging two anti-abortion laws in Oklahoma, both of which are medically unnecessary and limit access to abortion care. </span></span>This is the sixth lawsuit the Center for Reproductive Rights has filed against Oklahoma in five years.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The laws being challenged in this case are:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>Telemedicine Ban:</span></span></span></strong><span><span><span> This Oklahoma law bans abortion providers from using telemedicine to provide medication abortion (abortion by pills). </span></span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>Medication abortion has been approved by the FDA since 2000 and is extremely safe—the serious complication rate is less than one-half of one percent, whether provided in-person or by telemedicine. Telemedicine expands access to safe and legal health care.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>“Physician-Only Law”:</span></span></span></strong><span><span><span> This Oklahoma law bans advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) from providing abortion care, </span></span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>despite the fact that APRNs can provide early abortion care with the same safety and efficacy as physicians. For this reason, sixteen other states already authorize APRNs to provide early abortion care. Major medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health Association and the World Health Organization have concluded that laws prohibiting APRNs from providing early abortion services are medically unfounded. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span>“If we get these senseless laws off the books, we can expand abortion access in Oklahoma, which has very few abortion providers,” said <strong><span>Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights</span></strong>. “As clinics shutter across the country, telemedicine is a crucial way to keep services available.”</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>“Telemedicine helps reduce some of the barriers our patients face when accessing abortion care in Oklahoma,” said <strong><span>Julie Burkhart, Founder and CEO of Trust Women</span></strong>. “It is a critical component of health care delivery. Telemedicine would increase the available days that qualified practitioners are able to provide abortion care. It will certainly decrease the wait time for our patients. Reproductive access in Oklahoma is scarce; therefore, striking the physician-only law and the telemedicine ban will bring equality to more people in Oklahoma.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Currently, <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/medication-abortion"><span>18 states</span></a> have laws that require physicians to be physically present when providing pills for medication abortion. “Physician-only” laws are currently on the books in 34 states. The Center is challenging telemedicine bans in Arizona and Kansas, and physician-only laws in Arizona, Montana, and Virginia. The Montana Supreme Court has preliminarily allowed licensed advanced practice registered nurses to provide abortion care while the case continues at a lower court. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Other Oklahoma cases filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights have challenged the following laws:</span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span><span>A ban on the<span><span> standard method of abortion after approximately 14 weeks of pregnancy</span></span>—known as Dilation &amp; Evacuation—which was temporarily <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/oklahoma-supreme-court-steps-block-abortion-ban-after-rogue-ruling">blocked</a> earlier this week by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The same case also challenges a law forcing patients to wait 72 hours before they can obtain an abortion.</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span>A law forcing doctors to tell patients that medication abortion can be "reversed"—a false claim unsupported by scientific evidence. This law was temporarily <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/court-blocks-oklahoma-law-violates-doctors-free-speech">blocked</a> last month by a state district court. </span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span>A law that that restricted a woman’s access to medication abortion, which was permanently <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/oklahoma-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-medication-abortion">struck down</a> by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in April 2019.</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span>An<span><span> omnibus measure that </span></span>would have imposed four different new abortion restrictions, including subjecting abortion providers to warrantless searches. This was permanently <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/BurnsvCline_Oklahoma_SupremeCourt_Decision.pdf">blocked</a> by the Oklahoma Supreme court in October 2016.</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span>A law preventing doctors from providing abortions unless they had admitting privileges at a local hospital. This law was permanently <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/burns-v-cline-ok-supreme-court.pdf">blocked</a> by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in December 2016.</span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span>You can read the full complaint for this case [<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/PLD.2019-11-08.PETITION.pdf">HERE</a>]. This case was filed by Emily Nestler, T.J. Tu, and Kirby Tyrrell from the Center for Reproductive Rights along with co-counsel Patterson Belknap Webb &amp; Tyler LLP and local counsel Blake Patton from Walding &amp; Patton PLLC. Plaintiffs in the case are Trust Women Oklahoma City, Dr. Colleen McNicholas, and Bridget Van Treese, an advanced practice registered nurse. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>##</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span>MEDIA CONTACT:</span></strong> Nora Franco, <a href="mailto:nfranco@reprorights.org">nfranco@reprorights.org</a>, 609-964-6759</span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:56:09 +0000 ehorwitz 58789 at https://reproductiverights.org Oklahoma Supreme Court Steps in to Block Abortion Ban After Rogue Ruling https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/oklahoma-supreme-court-steps-block-abortion-ban-after-rogue-ruling <span>Oklahoma Supreme Court Steps in to Block Abortion Ban After Rogue Ruling</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Mon, 11/04/2019 - 16:41</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">Court issues order temporarily blocking a ban on the standard method of abortion after 14 weeks of pregnancy</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><strong><span>(Press Release)</span></strong><span> — Today, the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted an emergency request to block the state’s ban on <span><span>the standard method of abortion after approximately 14 weeks of pregnancy. The </span></span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/"><span><span><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></span></span></a> <span><span><span>asked the state’s high court to step in after </span></span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/oklahoma-court-goes-rogue-upholds-abortion-ban"><span><span><span>an Oklahoma state trial court</span></span></span></a><span><span><span> upheld the ban earlier this year, becoming the first court in the country to uphold such a law. The ban was passed in 2015 and has never gone into effect.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>“Today’s decision means Oklahomans can continue receiving high-quality, evidence-based abortion care,” said Autumn Katz, Senior Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights and lead counsel on this case. “Under this law, doctors would be subject to criminal penalties for providing abortions consistent with the standard of care. This ban was motivated by politics, not medicine, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that today.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Doctors who violate the ban could face up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Major medical organizations, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)</span></span></span><a href="http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/Statements/2015/ACOG-Statement-Regarding-Abortion-Procedure-Bans"><span><span><span> oppose</span></span></span></a><span><span><span> these types of bans, noting: “These restrictions represent legislative interference at its worst: doctors will be forced, by ill-advised, unscientifically motivated policy, to provide lesser care to patients. This is unacceptable.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Similar bans have been struck down in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, and Texas. </span></span></span><span>Just this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a federal appellate court’s decision finding an identical ban in Alabama unconstitutional.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Only four health centers provide abortion services in Oklahoma. In addition to the laws challenged in this suit, Oklahoma has passed many other abortion restrictions, including: laws requiring parental involvement for minors; a ban on the use of telemedicine to prescribe pills for medication abortion; a mandatory 72-hour delay; and restrictions on when private, public, and state health insurance plans can cover abortion care. The Center is currently challenging </span></span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/court-blocks-oklahoma-law-violates-doctors-free-speech"><span><span><span>another Oklahoma law</span></span></span></a><span><span><span> that forces doctors to inform patients without any medical basis that medication abortion can be “reversed.” The law was temporarily blocked late last month.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The case was filed in 2015 by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Walding &amp; Patton PLLC on behalf of Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>### </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span><span><span>MEDIA CONTACT:</span></span></span></strong><span><span><span> Nora Franco, </span></span></span><a href="mailto:nfranco@reprorights.org"><span><span><span>nfranco@reprorights.org</span></span></span></a><span><span><span>, 609-964-6759</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-cases field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Cases</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/case/nova-health-systems-v-cline-et-al" hreflang="en">Nova Health Systems v. Cline et al.</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/legal-restrictions-0" hreflang="en">Legal Restrictions</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Mon, 04 Nov 2019 21:41:13 +0000 ehorwitz 58786 at https://reproductiverights.org Civil Rights Groups and the County of Santa Clara Urge Court to Block HHS Denial of Care Rule https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/civil-rights-groups-and-county-santa-clara-urge-court-block-hhs-denial-care-rule <span>Civil Rights Groups and the County of Santa Clara Urge Court to Block HHS Denial of Care Rule</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Wed, 10/30/2019 - 16:32</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">Patients’ Lives at Risk if Trump Administration Rule Goes into Effect Nov. 22</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><strong><span><span>(PRESS RELEASE) </span></span></strong><span><span>– Today, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Lambda Legal, and the County of Santa Clara argued before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that the Trump administration’s Denial of Care Rule should be ruled unlawful and blocked from taking effect. The organizations, along with pro bono counsel Mayer Brown LLP, are representing myriad health care providers and medical professionals, as co-plaintiffs with the County, in the lawsuit <em><span>County of Santa Clara v. HHS</span></em>.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The Denial of Care Rule, which was issued in May by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is scheduled to take effect next month, invites any health care worker – including doctors, nurses, EMTs, administrators, janitors and clerical staff – to deny medical treatment, information and services to patients because of personal religious or moral beliefs. Health care facilities risk losing essential federal funding if they do not grant employees carte blanche to deny services. Because the rule is confusing and infeasible to implement, many health care facilities will likely be forced to eliminate services such as reproductive and LGBTQ care, leaving millions across the United States without access to critical health care.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Today, the civil rights organizations and the County argued that HHS exceeded its authority and arbitrarily and capriciously failed to consider the rule’s potential harm to patients and the health care system, in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. They also argued that the rule is unconstitutional because it advances specific religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment; violates patients’ rights to privacy, liberty and equal dignity as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment; and chills patients’ speech and expression in violation of the First Amendment, all to the detriment of patients’ health and well-being.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“This policy invites unprecedented discrimination against healthcare recipients at hospitals and other healthcare facilities across the country – HHS has said it is acceptable for a receptionist to refuse a patient care or for an EMT to refuse to transport a patient with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy,” said <strong><span>Genevieve Scott, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></strong>“What’s more, hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout the country will likely be coerced into eliminating abortion care, trans care, and other critical services to avoid loss of government funding that they depend upon to keep their doors open.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“We have less than a month before patients nationwide may be denied care because of someone else’s religious beliefs. This is about health – for ourselves, our children, our grandparents, our communities. No one should be denied medical treatment because of who they are, who they love or what they believe,” said <strong><span>Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United</span></strong>. “The Denial of Care rule violates our nation’s fundamental promise of religious freedom – that we are all free to believe or not believe, so long as we don’t harm others. It is the definition of harming others when you refuse to provide health care to those in need. The court should recognize the danger this rule poses to everyone and block it from ever taking effect.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“For more than five months this rule has hung over women, LGBTQ people, religious minorities, and other already marginalized and vulnerable populations, threatening at any moment to cut them off from critical and in some cases life-saving care,” <strong><span>Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Jamie Gliksberg</span></strong> said. “Our attorneys today made it transparently clear to the court just how devastating implementation of this rule will be, and we look forward to the court issuing a ruling that the facts overwhelmingly support.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“The argument today confirms that the rule has no legal or common sense basis and, if implemented, will undermine emergency services and medical care for the County’s nearly 2 million residents,” said <strong><span>James R. Williams, Santa Clara County Counsel</span></strong>. “The Trump Administration is purposefully stoking fear among already vulnerable communities and increasing barriers to critical health care. We are committed to healthcare for all—and that is why we will continue working to ensure this unlawful rule is blocked.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The lawsuit’s plaintiffs include the County of Santa Clara, which runs an extensive health and hospital system that serves as a safety-net provider for the county’s 1.9 million residents; the health providers Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center in Allentown, Pa., Center on Halsted in Chicago, Hartford GYN in Connecticut, Los Angeles LGBT Center, Mazzoni Center in Philadelphia, Trust Women Seattle and Whitman-Walker Health in Washington, D.C.; the associations AGLP, GLMA and Medical Students for Choice; and five doctors.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/County%20of%20Santa%20Clara%20v.%20HHS%205.28.19.pdf">The lawsuit is available here</a>.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span> </span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span><span>PRESS CONTACTS:</span></span></strong><br /><strong><span><span><strong><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></strong></span></span></strong><span><span>, Geraldine Henrich-Koenis, 202-524-5538, <a href="mailto:ghenrichkoenis@reprorights.org"><span>ghenrichkoenis@reprorights.org</span></a></span></span><br /><strong><span><span>Americans United for Separation of Church and State</span></span></strong><span><span>, Tali lsraeli or Liz Hayes, 202-466-3234, <a href="mailto:media@au.org"><span>media@au.org</span></a></span></span><br /><strong><span><span>Lambda Legal</span></span></strong><span><span>, Tom Warnke, 213-841-4503, <a href="mailto:twarnke@lambdalegal.org"><span>twarnke@lambdalegal.org</span></a></span></span><br /><strong><span><span>County of Santa Clara</span></span></strong><span><span>, Alex Butcher-Nesbitt, 603-707-6153, <a href="mailto:abutchernesbitt@mercuryllc.com"><span>abutchernesbitt@mercuryllc.com</span></a></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><em><span><span>Founded in 1992, the </span></span></em><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/"><em><strong><span><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></span></strong></em></a><em><span> is a global legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing reproductive health and autonomy. The Center’s groundbreaking court cases have expanded access to safe abortion, birth control and maternal healthcare in the U.S. and across the globe.</span></em></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.au.org/"><em><strong><span><span>Americans United for Separation of Church and State</span></span></strong></em></a><em><span> is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.</span></em></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.lambdalegal.org/"><em><strong><span><span>Lambda Legal</span></span></strong></em></a><em><span> is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and everyone living with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.</span></em></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><em><span><span>The government of the </span></span></em><span><span><a href="https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc"><em><strong><span><span>County of Santa Clara</span></span></strong></em></a><em><span> serves a diverse, multi-cultural population of 1.9 million residents – more populous than 14 states. With a $8.1 billion annual budget, dozens of departments and agencies, and over 20,000 employees, the County provides essential services to its residents, including public health protection, environmental stewardship, medical services through the County of Santa Clara Health System, child and adult protection services, homelessness prevention and solutions, roads, park services, libraries, emergency response to disasters, protection of minority communities and those under threat, access to a fair criminal justice system, and many others.</span></em></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span> </span></span></p> <p><span><span> </span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:32:11 +0000 ehorwitz 58785 at https://reproductiverights.org U.N. Security Council affirms Women, Peace and Security Agenda https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/un-security-council-affirms-women-peace-and-security-agenda <span>U.N. Security Council affirms Women, Peace and Security Agenda</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Wed, 10/30/2019 - 09:19</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><strong><span>(New York)</span></strong><span>--Today, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2493 during the opening moments of the Security Council Annual Open Debate on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) and marks the tenth resolution since the adoption of resolution 1325 in 2000.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span><span>Said Rebecca Brown, Senior Director of Global Advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights:</span></span></strong></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span>“We commend the UN Security Council for taking action to reaffirm the rights of women and girls within the Women, Peace and Security agenda and acknowledging the devastating impact of conflict on women and girls around the world.</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span>“Today’s strong demonstration of cross regional support of member states for sexual and reproductive health and rights, including access to safe abortion </span>is vital in the face of an unprecedented level of conflict and crisis around the world and the highest levels of associated displacement on record. Current estimates indicate that over </strong><a href="https://interactive.unocha.org/publication/globalhumanitarianoverview/"><strong>135.3 million people</strong></a><strong> are in need of </strong><a href="https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/ga_bp_conflictncrisis_2017_07_25.pdf"><strong>humanitarian</strong></a><strong> assistance globally.<span> In 2015, these figures included </span></strong><a href="https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/ga_bp_conflictncrisis_2017_07_25.pdf"><strong>26 million women and girls</strong></a><strong><span> of reproductive age, a figure most likely to have grown since.</span>  </strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span>“The Center for Reproductive Rights also commends South Africa for its leadership and commitment to the rights of women and girls, and in particular, their sexual and reproductive health and rights during its presidency of the Council. We need UN member States to remain committed to their legal obligations to women and girls in conflict now more than ever.”</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Although there is no explicit reference to sexual and reproductive health and rights or human rights defenders, resolution 2493 provides an important affirmation of the existing Women, Peace and Security agenda. Led by South Africa, 2493 both affirms Council consensus and secures the existing normative framework, including access to non-discriminatory and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services in conflict. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Next year the United Nations celebrates the 20th Anniversary of the Women, Peace and Security agenda at the Security Council, the primary international body for the maintenance of international peace and security. Since this time, despite some progress at the Council and the establishment and delivery of the </span><a href="https://www.unfpa.org/resources/what-minimum-initial-service-package">Minimum Services Package</a><span> for reproductive health, women and girls continue to be denied their basic rights and access to essential sexual and reproductive health in conflict. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>All women and girls need access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care services and information, but arguably nowhere is that need more acute than conflict affected settings. Further, access to SRH services, including abortion, have been recognized a fundamental human right. The rights of women and girls in conflict are protected by multiple, complementary bodies of international law, including international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international criminal law, and refugee law. The denial of care is a serious violation of these rights, and restrictions to non-discriminatory sexual and reproductive health can lead to <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/ga_bp_conflictncrisis_2017_07_25.pdf">high rates</a> of unsafe abortion, maternal mortality, <span>low birthweight, miscarriage, premature labor, and sexually transmitted infections</span>. Without access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, women and girls affected by conflict cannot access their full, meaningful and effective participation within the Women, Peace and Security Agenda. </span></span></span></p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-nations" hreflang="en">United Nations</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/at-the-united-nations" hreflang="en">At the United Nations</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:19:11 +0000 ehorwitz 58784 at https://reproductiverights.org Center for Reproductive Rights Announces Creative Council led by Elizabeth Banks https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-reproductive-rights-announces-creative-council-led-elizabeth-banks <span>Center for Reproductive Rights Announces Creative Council led by Elizabeth Banks</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Tue, 10/29/2019 - 15:25</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">Actors, producers, directors, artists, and cultural icons to join forces to champion reproductive rights access in the United States and around the world</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span>(Press Release) The Center for Reproductive Rights, a <span><span>global human rights organization, and </span></span>Elizabeth Banks, actor, director and producer, today announced the creation of the <em>Center for Reproductive Rights Creative Council</em> -- a new initiative to harness the power of the creative community to advance reproductive rights as fundamental human rights around the world. The group will leverage their platforms, reach, and cultural influence to raise the profile of the Center’s cases and issues to educate the public and advocate for change on sexual reproductive health and rights.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“Deciding whether or when to become a parent is one of the most important life decisions we can make. It’s not a decision someone can make for anyone else,” said <strong>Elizabeth Banks, chair of the Center for Reproductive Rights Creative Council</strong>. “And, yet, anti-abortion politicians seek to pass extreme bans in the hope of reversing over 45 years of precedent to take away one of our constitutional rights. As a creative community, we will fight to keep abortion legal and accessible in the United States and work to elevate the critical role the Center for Reproductive Rights is playing in protecting our fundamental human rights around the world.” </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The Creative Council was formally announced on Monday evening at the Center for Reproductive Rights’ annual Gala in New York City, which raised over $2 million to support the Center’s work. Photos of select Creative Council members from the Gala are available <a href="https://assignments.gettyimages.com/mm/nicePath/gyipa_public?nav=pr652254612"><span>here</span></a>.  </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The Center for Reproductive Rights Creative Council includes chair <strong>Elizabeth Banks</strong>, as well as founding members <strong>Amy Brenneman</strong>, actor and producer; <strong>Lisa Edelstein</strong>, actor, producer, writer, and director; <strong>Sarah Jones</strong>, <span>Tony-winning playwright/performer and producer</span>; <strong>Aja Naomi King</strong>, actor; <strong>Cindi Leive</strong>, journalist and former editor-in-chief of <em>Glamour</em>; <strong>Carol Lim and Humberto Leon</strong>, co-founders of Opening Ceremony; <strong>Busy Philipps</strong>, actor and <em>New York Times</em> best-selling author; and <strong>Erika Savage</strong>, lawyer and executive at Morphe Cosmetics.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“The Center for Reproductive Rights is proud to partner with these powerful artists to protect and expand reproductive rights access across the globe through our work in the courts, in public policy, and before human rights bodies,” said <strong>Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights</strong>. “We know the impact these artists can have in advocating for change and reaching new audiences to raise awareness about reproductive rights issues, including maternal health, abortion care, contraception, and assisted reproduction.” </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Over the next several months, they will be focused on the Center’s U.S. Supreme Court case, <em>June Medical Services v. Gee</em>, which challenges a Louisiana law designed to shut down clinics and undermine our guaranteed right to access abortion care. This law is identical to a Texas law the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional that the Center litigated just three years ago in <em>Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt</em>. If the Supreme Court allows this law to stand,<em> </em>all of Louisiana’s clinics would close except one, leaving one doctor to provide abortion services for nearly a million women across the state, putting abortion care completely out of reach. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">About the Center for Reproductive Rights</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">The Center for Reproductive Rights uses the power of law to advance reproductive rights as fundamental human rights around the world. Headquartered in New York City, the non-profit, non-partisan organization has regional offices in Bogota, Geneva, Kathmandu, Nairobi, and Washington, DC. Since its founding in 1992, the Center has been involved in every major abortion rights case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court including winning the Court’s most recent case <em>Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt</em> in 2016. This year, just three years after that victory, the Center is back at the Supreme Court fighting to preserve that win and the constitutional guarantee of the right to abortion in <em>June Medical Services v. Gee.  </em></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:25:59 +0000 ehorwitz 58783 at https://reproductiverights.org Court Blocks Oklahoma Law that Violates Doctors’ Free Speech https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/court-blocks-oklahoma-law-violates-doctors-free-speech <span>Court Blocks Oklahoma Law that Violates Doctors’ Free Speech</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/511" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eugena@defmethod.io</span></span> <span>Wed, 10/23/2019 - 21:18</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">Law would force physicians to tell patients that some abortions are “reversible”</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>(PRESS RELEASE)—Today, a state district court judge ruled from the bench and temporarily blocked <span><span>an Oklahoma law forcing doctors to tell patients that medication abortion (abortion by pills) can be “reversed”—a misleading claim unsupported by scientific evidence. Under this law, </span></span>physicians can be charged with a felony if this misleading information is not repeatedly relayed to the patient, including at least 72 hours before their medication abortion appointment and on mandatory signs in the clinic.</span><span>The preliminary injunction was requested <span><span>by</span></span></span> <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/"><span><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></span></a><span><span>, Weil, Gotshal &amp; Manges, LLP, and Walding &amp; Patton PLLC on behalf of Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC and Dr. Alan Braid.</span></span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>“<span><span>This law is a glaring free speech violation and the court recognized that today,</span></span>” said Gail Deady, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “<span><span>There is no credible scientific evidence that medication abortion is reversible. Forcing doctors to tell patients otherwise would violate not only their free speech rights, but medical ethics.”</span></span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>“When patients walk through the doors of our clinic, they deserve to be told truthful and non-misleading information about whatever treatment they’re receiving, whether it’s a prescription for birth control or a medication abortion,” said Dr. Alan Braid, owner of Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic. “Today’s ruling protects our ability to speak honestly with our patients and protects the trust our patients put in us.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">The law being challenged, S.B. 614, was scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2019. In addition to forcing doctors to tell their patients that a medication abortion can be “reversed,” the law also requires providers to repeatedly direct patients to Heartbeat International’s Abortion Pill Reversal Network 24-hour hotline. Providers must also post signage throughout their health center with the network’s information, and directly provide it to patients following their appointment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Last month, a court blocked a similar law in </span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/court-blocks-north-dakota-law-forcing-physicians-lie-about-abortion"><span><span><span>North Dakota</span></span></span></a></span></span><span> in a case also filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Eight states have now passed laws requiring abortion providers to tell patients about so-called abortion “reversal,” with five of those laws passed in 2019. The eight states include: Arkansas; Idaho; Kentucky; North Dakota; South Dakota; Oklahoma; Nebraska; and Utah.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>These laws are opposed by medical experts, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College for Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ACOG has </span><span><span><a href="https://www.acog.org/-/media/Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/FactsAreImportantMedicationAbortionReversal.pdf"><span><span><span>referred</span></span></span></a></span></span><span> to these bills as “based on unproven, unethical research” and “dangerous to women’s health.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Only four health centers provide abortion services in the entire state of Oklahoma. In addition to the law challenged in this suit, Oklahoma has passed many other abortion restrictions, including: a parental consent requirement for minors; a ban on the use of telemedicine to prescribe pills for medication abortion; and restrictions on when private, public and state health insurance plans can cover abortion care. The Center is currently </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/oklahoma-court-goes-rogue-upholds-abortion-ban"><span><span>challenging two other Oklahoma laws</span></span></a><span>--a law banning the standard abortion procedure after about 14 weeks of pregnancy, and another law that forces patients to wait 72 hours to access abortion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">This case was filed by attorneys from Weil, Gotshal &amp; Manges, LLP, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Walding &amp; Patton PLLC on behalf of Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC and Dr. Alan Braid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><strong><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">MEDIA CONTACT:</span></strong> <span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">Nora Franco, </span><a href="mailto:nfranco@reprorights.org"><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span>nfranco@reprorights.org</span></span></a><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">, 609-964-6759</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/legal-restrictions-0" hreflang="en">Legal Restrictions</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Thu, 24 Oct 2019 01:18:43 +0000 eugena@defmethod.io 58777 at https://reproductiverights.org Center for Reproductive Rights Sues Department of Health and Human Services for Failing to Comply with Freedom of Information Act Requests https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-reproductive-rights-sues-department-health-and-human-services-failing-comply <span>Center for Reproductive Rights Sues Department of Health and Human Services for Failing to Comply with Freedom of Information Act Requests </span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Tue, 10/15/2019 - 12:22</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><span>(PRESS RELEASE) —Today, the <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/">Center for Reproductive Rights</a>filed a <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/document/complaint-foia-request-hhs">complaint </a>against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for failing to produce records related to the Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) operations and enforcement of civil rights laws. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Lawyers say the complaint, which comes after two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests went effectively unanswered, is critical in revealing shifts in OCR’s priorities that harm the office’s efforts to combat discrimination and protect patient privacy.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>In 2018 the Trump administration created the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division (CRFD) within OCR purportedly to enforce religious and moral refusal laws. While the stated rationale for the establishing this division was to handle an increase in religious and moral refusal complaints, historically only an extremely small fraction of the complaints received by OCR are related to these issues. Despite this, HHS sought to increase CRFD’s budget by over $1 million in Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, while simultaneously reducing overall funding for OCR. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>On August 30, the Center for Reproductive Rights submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking budget and staffing details of the CRFD and information related to OCR’s HIPPA enforcement activities. Although a 2009 law enacted by the Obama administration specifies that any funds collected as a result of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) violations must be used to enforce health data privacy and security regulations, suspicion has been growing regarding the funds’ distribution</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“There is simply no reason to hide this critical information from the public. Every day ordinary Americans rely on the Office of Civil Rights to do its job and protect them against discrimination,” said Katherine Gillespie from the Center for Reproductive Rights. “The public deserves to know how the Trump administration has retreated from this critical enforcement role and we must hold them accountable.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>HHS has failed to share any information or provide a final response within 20 days since the initial requests were submitted, which is required by law. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“The Trump administration has repeatedly used the Office of Civil Rights to pursue a politically motivated agenda at the expense of protecting patient privacy and enforcing civil rights laws,” said Kalpana Kotagal, a partner in Cohen Milstein Sellers &amp; Toll PLLC's Civil Rights &amp; Employment practice. “Americans have a right to understand the justification for increasing the budget of this division—which is a solution in search of problem—while slashing funding for critical offices that combat discrimination and protect patients.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The Center previously filed a FOIA request seeking information to understand <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-for-reproductive-rights-national-women%E2%80%99s-law-center-file-freedom-of-information-ac"><span>why HHS created the CRFD</span></a>. The Center for Reproductive Rights is represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers &amp; Toll throughout this litigation. </span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/legal-restrictions-0" hreflang="en">Legal Restrictions</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:22:24 +0000 ehorwitz 58773 at https://reproductiverights.org