Press Releases https://reproductiverights.org/taxonomy/term/114/all en Appeals Court Strikes Down Mississippi 15-Week Abortion Ban https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/appeals-court-strikes-down-mississippi-15-week-abortion-ban <span>Appeals Court Strikes Down Mississippi 15-Week Abortion Ban</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Fri, 12/13/2019 - 19:14</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>(PRESS RELEASE)</span></strong><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">—Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The case was brought by </span><span>the </span><a href="http://reproductiverights.org/"><span><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></span></a> <span>and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &amp; Garrison on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO)--the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi. </span><br /><br /><span>In today’s <a href="http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/18-60868_Documents.pdf">decision</a>, Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote: “In an unbroken line dating to <em><span>Roe v. Wade</span></em>, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”</span><br /><br /><span>“The Fifth Circuit recognized today what is obvious: Mississippi’s abortion ban defies decades of Supreme Court precedent,” said <strong><span>Hillary Schneller, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></strong>“With this ruling, Mississippi—and other states trying to put abortion out of reach—should finally get the message. Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars to defend multiple abortion bans that won’t stand up in court, they should be working on other issues—like addressing the state’s alarming maternal mortality rates.”</span><br /><br /><span>The 15-week abortion ban was passed last year and struck down by a district court in November 2018. In that decision, </span><a href="https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Jackson-v-Currier-Order.pdf?_ga=2.119037897.135398967.1569854624-2102010094.1554127411"><span><span>Judge Carlton W. Reeves stated</span></span></a><span> “[t]he State chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn <em><span>Roe v. Wade</span></em>.” Just four months later, the state passed another, even more restrictive law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, which has also been blocked by the Center for Reproductive Rights and its co-counsel. Of the recent abortion bans passed by states, Mississippi’s are the furthest along in the court system.</span><br /><br /><span>“Mississippi politicians have done everything in their power to cut off abortion access in our state. Despite these attempts, abortion remains legal in Mississippi and our clinic is open,” said <strong><span>Shannon Brewer, director of Jackson Women’s Health Organization.</span></strong> “But year after year, the state makes it harder to access abortion. Because of that, many of our patients drive hundreds of miles and spend weeks or months saving money to reach us—for abortion care, and for gas, a hotel, and to cover childcare.”  </span><br /><br /><span>The ban violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent, dating back to <em><span>Roe v. Wade</span></em>, that a state may not ban abortion prior to viability, meaning when the fetus can survive for a sustained period outside the womb.</span><br /><br /><span>Mississippi is one of nine states that passed abortion bans this year, including Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, and Utah. Mississippi’s ban struck down today is the first of the recent bans to reach a federal appellate court.</span><br /><br /><span>Mississippi is </span><a href="https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/health-of-women-and-children/measure/overall_mch/state/MS"><span><span>ranked last</span></span></a><span> in the United States for the health of women and children in the state. Abortion is already very difficult to access in Mississippi, as there is only one clinic and countless hurdles pregnant patients face—including a requirement that a pregnant person make two in-person trips to the clinic and delay their abortion by at least 24-hours after the first visit, state-mandated biased counseling, a medically unnecessary and onerous regulatory scheme that applies only to abortion providers, a ban on the use of telemedicine for abortion care, and a law that restricts the provision of abortion to physicians only, which bars other qualified clinicians from providing abortion. </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-for-reproductive-rights-announces-challenge-to-dozens-of-abortion-restrictions-in-"><span><span>These laws</span></span></a><span>, in addition to the state’s </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/mississippi-six-week-abortion-ban-challenged-in-court"><span><span>6-week ban</span></span></a><span> and </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/mississippi-continues-defend-15-week-abortion-ban-despite-searing-court-decision"><span><span>15-week ban</span></span></a><span>, are being challenged by the Center and co-counsel in a single suit. </span><br /><br /><span>This case is being litigated by the Center for Reproductive Rights; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &amp; Garrison LLP; civil rights attorney Robert B. McDuff in Jackson, Miss., and the Mississippi Center for Justice on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization.<br /><br /> You can read the full decision <strong><span><a href="http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/18-60868_Documents.pdf">here</a>.</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span>MEDIA CONTACT:</span></strong><span> Kelly Krause, </span><a href="mailto:kkrause@reprorights.org"><span><span>kkrause@reprorights.org</span></span></a><span><span>; 917-637-3649</span></span></span></span></p> <p><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/jackson-womens-health-organization-v-dobbs" hreflang="en">Jackson Women&#039;s Health Organization v Dobbs</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" /> Sat, 14 Dec 2019 00:14:17 +0000 ehorwitz 58882 at https://reproductiverights.org Slovakia’s Parliament rejects harmful restrictions on safe abortion care https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/slovakias-parliament-rejects-harmful-restrictions-safe-abortion-care <span>Slovakia’s Parliament rejects harmful restrictions on safe abortion care</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Thu, 12/05/2019 - 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><span>Today the Slovak Parliament rejected draft legislation that would have severely restricted women’s access to abortion care and subjected women to a series of humiliating and medically inaccurate and unnecessary requirements prior to accessing abortion.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span> <span><span>“<em>Today’s result was critical for the protection of women’s health and wellbeing in Slovakia. </em></span></span><em>The s</em><em><span><span>ole purpose of the proposed legislation was to harass and humiliate women seeking</span></span> access to safe and legal abortion care in Slovakia. </em><em><span><span>We applaud the Slovak Parliament’s rejection of these regressive legislative proposals. We call on them to refrain from imposing further restrictions on women’s access to safe abortion care</span></span></em><span><span>,” said Leah Hoctor, Regional Director for Europe at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “<em>We urge Slovakia to take steps to remove existing barriers to legal abortion and to ensure its laws are in line with World Health Organization standards and the recommendations of United Nations and other human rights mechanisms</em>.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The rejected legislation sought to require women to undergo mandatory ultrasound prior to abortion and to view and obtain the ultrasound images. It also sought to further delay women’s access to abortion on request by extending the current 48 hour mandatory delay to 96 hours. It also sought to force doctors to provide women with medically inaccurate and biased information on abortion, and to prohibit so called “advertising” on abortion and to impose a fine of up to 66,400 Euros on those who order or disseminate it.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>All of the proposed requirements have no medical justification and contravene World Health Organization guideline. The United Nations has repeatedly called on Slovakia to remove barriers to and ensure access to safe and legal abortion. In October 2019, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed deep concern about the legislative proposals and urged Slovakia to avoid any retrogression in relation to women’s sexual and reproductive health rights. In November 2019, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Members of European Parliament, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health and the United Nations Working Group on discrimination against women and girls all expressed concerns about this regressive draft legislation and called on the Slovak Parliament to reject it.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>On 18 November 2019 the Center for Reproductive Rights submitted a <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Joint%20NGO%20letter_Slovakia_Bill%201729%20%282019%29_final%20updated.pdf">joint letter</a> to the Slovak Parliament on behalf of over 30 civil society organizations from across the world urging the Parliament to reject the regressive legislative proposal and refrain from further attempts to restrict reproductive rights in Slovakia.</span></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/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/reporting-on-rights" hreflang="en">Reporting on Rights</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Thu, 05 Dec 2019 15:00:45 +0000 ehorwitz 58874 at https://reproductiverights.org Medical Groups, Legal Experts, People Who Had Abortions, and Advocates Join Fight Against Louisiana’s Anti-Abortion Law https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/medical-groups-legal-experts-people-who-had-abortions-and-advocates-join-fight-against <span>Medical Groups, Legal Experts, People Who Had Abortions, and Advocates Join Fight Against Louisiana’s Anti-Abortion Law</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Tue, 12/03/2019 - 09:54</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"> ABA, AMA and other diverse supporters unite to urge U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Louisiana law designed to shut down abortion clinics</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>—Yesterday, a coalition of leading voices in medicine, law, and public policy joined with abortion patients and advocates to submit<span> 27 </span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/document/amicus-briefs-summaries"><span>amicus briefs</span></a><span><span> to the Supreme Court in opposition to a law that would close every abortion clinic in Louisiana except for one, leaving a single physician able to provide abortions in the state. The law is at the center of a case the Supreme Court is hearing this term--</span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee"><em><span><span>June Medical v. Gee</span></span></em></a><span><span>--filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></span><br /><br /><span><span>These “friend of the court” briefs—submitted by a collection of nearly 200 organizations and more than 700 individuals—represent a united front against medically unnecessary abortion restrictions that undermine the constitutional right to access abortion. From medical experts, to prominent legal scholars, to <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/providers_20191202122051790_June%20Medical%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">abortion providers</a> and individuals who have had abortions, each signer provides unique insight on what this case could mean for the country.</span></span><br /><br /><span><span>Some of the briefs filed include:</span></span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Briefs representing hundreds of </span></span></strong><span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/124056/20191202133543629_18-13231460%20Holly%20Alvarado%20%20Brief.pdf"><strong><span>individual women</span></strong></a></span><strong><span><span> who have exercised their right to abortion—from veterans to medical school students. One brief is signed by <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Lawyers%20Stories.pdf">368 attorneys</a>, speaking about their own abortion stories</span></span></strong><span><span> and the importance of abortion access in their lives. They range from law students to solo practitioners to judges and law firm partners, all sharing personal stories that demonstrate how access to abortion is essential for women to be equal participants in society and make the best decisions for themselves. </span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>A brief from the <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/ABA_20191202141458213_18-1323tsacABA.pdf">American Bar Association</a> (ABA)—marking the first time the ABA has submitted a brief in an abortion case</span></span></strong><span><span>--as well as briefs from a </span></span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/bipartisan_20191202132455456_Brief%20of%20Former%20Government%20Officials%20.pdf"><span>bi-partisan collection</span></a></span><span><span> of former judges and solicitors general, warning of the risks posed to rule of law and the Constitution if the Supreme Court fails to uphold its own precedent.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Briefs from</span></span></strong><span><span> <strong><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Major%20Medical%20Groups.pdf">major medical groups</a></span></strong>—including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Medical%20Staff%20Professionals.pdf">health care professionals</a> and <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/social_science_20191202144643998_18-1323%2018-1460%20Amici%20Brief.pdf">social science researchers</a>, each demonstrating that there is no medical reason for requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges. As the briefs emphasize, abortion is an exceedingly safe procedure with a complication rate lower than a fraction of one percent. Requiring doctors to have admitting privileges does nothing to improve the health and safety of women who seek abortion care, but instead restricts access to abortion, which has demonstrated negative effects on women and families.  </span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>A <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/members_of_con_20191202144301670_Brief.pdf">brief</a> from 197 <span>current members of Congress</span></span></span></strong><span><span><span> connecting</span></span></span><span><span> the Louisiana law to the waves of extreme and unconstitutional bans aimed at overturning <em><span>Roe</span></em>, and reminding the Court that members of Congress rely on precedent in order to fulfill their constitutional duty as legislators. </span></span><span>Lead signers include Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Murray, and Blumenthal, and Speaker Pelosi, as well as Representatives Pallone, Nadler, DeGette, Lee, and Chu. Also, 22 state attorneys general filed a <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/State%20Attorneys%20General.pdf">brief</a> warning of the risks of departing from longstanding Supreme Court precedent and to women nationwide if the Court fails to reaffirm the constitutional right to abortion care.</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Briefs from groups that work to understand the disproportionate impacts that the Louisiana law would have</span></span></strong><span><span> on <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/poverty_20191202124332148_18-1323%20-1460%20tsac%20NHeLP--PDFA.pdf">low-income people</a>, <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Reproductive%20Justice%20Advocates.pdf">people of color</a>, immigrants, people with disabilities, <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/lgbt_20191202141708057_18-1323tsacLGBTQOrganizations.pdf">LGBTQ people</a>, and others <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Women%27s%20Equality%20and%20Economic%20Opportunity.pdf">who already face structural inequalities</a> and discrimination in health care and other realms.  </span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Briefs from</span></span></strong><span><span> <strong><span>leading legal scholars</span></strong> in the fields of <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Constitutional%20Law%20Scholars.pdf">constitutional law</a>, <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/federal_court_s_20191202140852415_18-1323%2018-1460%20tsac%20Federal%20Courts%20Scholars.pdf">federal courts</a>, and </span></span><span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/124067/20191202140004789_18-1323%20-1460%20Amici%20Brief%20Reproductive%20Justice%20Scholars.pdf"><span>reproductive justice</span></a></span><span><span> urging the Supreme Court to defend long-standing precedent against incursion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its decision below.   </span></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span><span>“This diverse and unprecedented array of expert voices, individual women, and advocates paints a compelling portrait of the immense stakes in this case,” said <strong><span>Nancy Northup, President &amp; CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></strong>“It’s clear that support for abortion access and the rule of law spans all political parties, all professions, and all walks of life. We are relying on the Supreme Court to heed these urgent warnings and protect our constitutional right to access abortion free from burdensome restrictions, as it did just three years ago and has done consistently for more than four decades.”</span></span><br /><br /><span><span>This case marks the first abortion rights case to be heard by the Supreme Court since the confirmations of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down an identical Texas law in the landmark case </span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/case/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt"><em><span><span>Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt</span></span></em></a><em><span><span>-</span></span></em><span><span>-a case also brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights. In that case, the Court found that admitting privileges requirements pose an “undue burden” on the right to abortion, and that any state law restricting abortion access must provide evidence-based benefits that outweigh the burdens it imposes on abortion access. Many of the above organizations and individuals signing on to the “friend of the court” briefs also voiced their support in the 2016 case. </span></span><br /><br /><span><span>The Center originally filed<em><span> June Medical Services vs. Gee</span></em> in August 2014. Plaintiffs are women’s health center Hope Medical Group, and doctors who provide abortion care. Julie Rikelman and Travis J. Tu of the Center for Reproductive Rights are lead counsel for plaintiffs, along with co-counsel O'Melveny &amp; Myers LLP.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></span></p> <p><br /><span><span><strong><span><span>MEDIA CONTACT:</span></span></strong><span><span> Kelly Krause; <a href="mailto:kkrause@reprorights.org">kkrause@reprorights.org</a>; 917-637-3649 </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/june-medical-services-v-kliebert-ap" hreflang="en">June Medical Services v. Gee</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" /> Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:54:38 +0000 ehorwitz 58868 at https://reproductiverights.org Center for Reproductive Rights Releases New Brief of European Abortion Laws https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-reproductive-rights-releases-new-brief-european-abortion-laws <span>Center for Reproductive Rights Releases New Brief of European Abortion Laws</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Wed, 11/27/2019 - 11:37</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">Europe leads the world with its number of liberalized laws on abortion, but many women still face access barriers due to regulatory restrictions or regressive threats</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) --A new comparative overview of European abortion laws, released today by the Center for Reproductive Rights, reveals that more than 95% of women of reproductive age currently live in countries where laws allow abortion either on request or on broad social grounds. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>This impressive statistic nevertheless masks the fact that some of these countries maintain restrictive pre-conditions, such as mandatory counselling or enforced waiting periods, that can impede or delay women accessing services. In addition, abortion is still outlawed or extremely restricted in six countries in the region.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The report, <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/document/european-abortion-law-fact-sheet"><em>European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview</em></a>, outlines that the trend is squarely towards positive and progressive liberalizing reform in the European region, such as the recent legalization of abortion on request in Cyprus, Ireland and Iceland. It also warns, however, that the region remains at considerable risk of attempts to rollback abortion rights, such as current proposals before the Slovakian parliament that would introduce extreme mandatory requirements prior to abortion that are contrary to international human rights principles and law.  </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The new report reveals that, currently, across the European region:</span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span>Thirty-nine countries (ranging right across the continent, from Portugal and Spain in the West to Turkey and the Russian Federation in the East) have legalized abortion on request (i.e where abortion is legal without the need for a medical practitioner or other authority to certify a particular reason for the abortion)</span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span>Two countries (Finland and the United Kingdom) have legalized abortion on broad social grounds</span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span>Six countries retain highly restrictive abortion laws – Andorra, Malta and San Marino do not allow abortion in any circumstances; Liechtenstein allows abortion only when a woman’s life or health is at risk, or where the pregnancy resulted from sexual assault; Monaco and Poland allow abortion only when a woman’s life or health is at risk, following a sexual assault, or where a severe foetal anomaly has been detected</span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span>Some countries have set time limits on abortion on request at between 18-24 weeks of pregnancy, while others set these limits around the end of the first trimester of pregnancy. All of these countries’ laws allow access later in pregnancy in specific circumstances, such as where a woman’s health or life is at risk, and here the standard practice is not to impose any time limitation at all.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Despite having legalized abortion, some European countries have maintained a range of procedural rules and regulations that can impede and delay women’s access to abortion care.  These include:</span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span>mandatory waiting periods between the date on which an abortion is first requested and the date on which it may take place; </span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span>laws compelling women to undergo counselling, which can sometimes be required to be biased or directive; </span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span>short rigid time limits for accessing abortion that may disproportionately affect certain groups of women; and </span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span>criminalising women or medical professionals who act outside of the legal framework for abortion provision</span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span>Although the general trend in Europe has been towards increasing liberalization and removing barriers to access, in recent years some countries in Europe have attempted to roll back existing legal protections for women’s access to abortion care. Initiatives have ranged from attempts to introduce regressive pre-conditions before abortions can take place, such as mandatory biased counselling, or waiting periods, to attempts to fully ban abortion or remove existing legal grounds for abortion. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><em>“Women in Europe have fought long and hard for legal entitlements to access abortion care,”</em> said Leah Hector, Regional Director for Europe at the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“<em>As recent events in Poland and Slovakia demonstrate, rights to </em>access<em> abortion may be arbitrarily threatened by attempts to introduce new barriers or scale back on the legality of abortion care, and we must be ever vigilant. </em></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><em>“Comparative reports like this one help to capture the current status of abortion law and practice across the region, and provide advocates and policy makers with information on where and how their efforts should be focused moving forward. There is much progress still to be made if Europe is to achieve the promise of gender equality.”</em></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>To download a copy of <em>European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview </em>go to: <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/document/european-abortion-law-fact-sheet">https://reproductiverights.org/document/european-abortion-law-fact-sheet</a></span></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/europe" hreflang="en">Europe</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/reporting-on-rights" hreflang="en">Reporting on Rights</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:37:01 +0000 ehorwitz 58839 at https://reproductiverights.org Center for Reproductive Rights Files Opening Brief in Abortion Case Before the Supreme Court https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-reproductive-rights-files-opening-brief-abortion-case-supreme-court <span>Center for Reproductive Rights Files Opening Brief in Abortion Case Before the Supreme Court</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Mon, 11/25/2019 - 19:15</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">Identical abortion issue decided by Supreme Court in 2016</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 lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>(PRESS RELEASE)</span></span></span></strong><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>—Today, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed its <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/June%20Medical%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioners%20-%20FINAL.pdf">opening brief</a> before the United States Supreme Court in <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee"><em><span>June Medical Services v. Gee</span></em></a>—the first abortion rights case to be heard by the Court since Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were confirmed. In the case, the Center is challenging a Louisiana law (Act 620) that is identical to a Texas law struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>Act 620 requires physicians who provide abortion care to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide care. In </span></span></span><span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/case/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt"><em><span><span>Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt</span></span></em></a><em> </em></span></span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>— the 2016 case brought by the Center<em> </em>—<em> </em>the Supreme Court struck down an identical Texas law, holding that admitting privileges have no medical purpose and present an unconstitutional “undue burden” on the right to abortion. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>“A properly functioning legal system depends on certain basic principles that are absolutely critical for respect of the courts as the true guardians of the rule of law,” <strong><span>said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “</span></strong>The facts, the law, and the Constitution have not changed since an identical law was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. We are relying on the Court to reaffirm that decision and preserve abortion access for women in Louisiana and across the country.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>Admitting privilege requirements for outpatient abortion providers are opposed by major medical groups—<em> </em>such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—<em> </em>as medically unnecessary.  Abortion is a safe procedure with an extremely low major complication rate—lower than that of other outpatient procedures like</span></span></span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/safetybrief12-14.pdf"> </a><a href="https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/safetybrief12-14.pdf"><span>colonoscopies</span></a></span></span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>. Hospitals frequently deny admitting privileges to doctors who provide abortions for reasons ranging from ideological opposition to the fact that too few of their patients will ever need hospital care.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>Already, Louisiana ranks among the lowest in the country in terms of abortion access—<em> </em>more than 92% of Louisiana parishes have no abortion clinic. Since 2001, the number of abortion clinics in Louisiana has fallen from 11 to three as the state has imposed a slew of onerous requirements for abortion providers. There are nearly one million women of reproductive age in the state.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>Louisiana </span></span></span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2018-health-of-women-and-children-report/state-summaries-louisiana"><span>ranks </span></a></span></span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>48th among states when it comes to the health of women and children, and maternal mortality has </span></span></span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2018-health-of-women-and-children-report/state-summaries-louisiana"><span>increased</span></a></span></span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span> 28% in Louisiana since 2016. The Center for Reproductive Rights has sued Louisiana more than 25 times since the organization was founded in 1992.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>The Center originally filed this case — </span></span></span><span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/17-cv-404-FILED-Complaint-plus-attachments-6-27-17.pdf"><em><span><span>June Medical Services v. Gee</span></span></em></a></span></span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span> — in August 2014. Plaintiffs are a women’s health center and doctors, suing on behalf of their patients. Julie Rikelman and Travis J. Tu are lead counsel for plaintiffs, along with co-counsel O'Melveny &amp; Myers LLP.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span><span>The full brief is available <strong><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/June%20Medical%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioners%20-%20FINAL.pdf">here</a>.</span></strong></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><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> Kelly Krause; </span></span></span><span><span><a href="mailto:kkrause@reprorights.org">kkrause@reprorights.org</a><span>; 917-637-3649  </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/june-medical-services-v-kliebert-ap" hreflang="en">June Medical Services v. Gee</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" /> Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:15:38 +0000 ehorwitz 58837 at https://reproductiverights.org New Tool Shows State of Abortion Law and Abortion Access Across America https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/new-tool-shows-state-abortion-law-and-abortion-access-across-america <span>New Tool Shows State of Abortion Law and Abortion Access Across America </span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/22/2019 - 10:23</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">Center for Reproductive Rights comprehensive digital map shows the ‘No Roe Reality’ of abortion laws, restrictions,and protections on the books - including those laws currently blocked by the courts </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>PRESS RELEASE) – Today, the </span></span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/"><span><span><span><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></span></span></span></a><span><span><span> unveiled a new and improved digital tool, </span></span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell"><em><span><span><span><span>What if Roe Fell</span></span></span></span></em></a><em><span><span><span>, </span></span></span></em><span><span><span>showing the current state of abortion access across the United States, including the 5 most populous U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.  If the Supreme Court limits or overturns <em><span>Roe v. Wade</span></em></span></span></span><span><span>, abortion access would be at risk in almost one-half of U.S. states. The new tool shows that abortion access is challenging in many parts of the U.S. due to state restrictions.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>For the first time in three years, the tool has been overhauled to add new search features so users can sort states based on the types of bans, restrictions, and protections in place in each state. Not only is this the most comprehensive digital map on abortion access currently available, it showcases the importance of the courts that have permanently prevented many abortion bans and restrictions from going into effect as well as those laws currently on hold as the Center and other organizations challenge the laws in state and federal courts.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“<em><span>What if Roe Fell</span></em> shows the devastating landscape of abortion access if Roe is weakened or overturned,” said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We have analyzed the laws and constitutional protections of every state. This tool is a call to action to pass state and federal laws protecting abortion rights and abortion access.”</span></span><br />  </span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>This one-of-a-kind interactive digital map provides an overview of current abortion bans, restrictions, and protections across the country, including:</span></span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span><span><span>Trigger bans – abortion bans that could be triggered if the federal right is overturned</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><span>Abortion bans broken down by the number of weeks of pregnancy</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><span>7 kinds of restrictions targeting specifically abortion providers (facility requirements, admitting privileges, etc.)</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span><span>The Center’s new map shows the state of abortion access in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five most populous U.S. territories:</span></span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>7 states have</span></span></strong><span><span> <strong><span>expanded access to abortion care and protect abortion rights under state law</span></strong>: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>14 states</span></span></strong><span><span> <strong><span>protect abortion rights under state law:</span></strong> Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, and Rhode Island</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>8 states/district/territories</span></span></strong><span><span> <strong><span>where</span></strong> <strong><span>abortion is not protected under state, district or territory law</span></strong>: Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia, and Wyoming.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>24 states/territories that are hostile to abortion</span></span></strong><span><span>: Alabama, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, the Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span><span>The map also shows laws are on the books that are currently on hold due to litigation as well as laws that have been blocked from going into effect.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><em><span><span>What If Roe Fell</span></span></em><span><span> also includes a glossary of terms commonly used in abortion conversations, as well as a comprehensive history of abortion access across the U.S. since the Supreme Court’s decision on <em><span>Roe </span></em>in 1973. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><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> Kelly Krause; </span></span></span><a href="mailto:kkrause@reprorights.org"><span><span>kkrause@reprorights.org</span></span></a><span><span><span>; 917-637-3649  </span></span></span></span></span></p> </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="/what-if-roe-fell" hreflang="en">What If Roe Fell?</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> </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/reporting-on-rights" hreflang="en">Reporting on Rights</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 22 Nov 2019 15:23:39 +0000 ehorwitz 58801 at https://reproductiverights.org 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_kr300ly" 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_kr300ly">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_lgz19h1" title="World Health Organization, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 6, 34, 64." href="#footnote2_lgz19h1">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_q02k8ch" 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_q02k8ch">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_rmt7cqn" title="World Health Organization, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 95." href="#footnote4_rmt7cqn">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_jerwbdk" 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_jerwbdk">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_i5yjqtw" title="Tysiąc v. Poland, No. 5410/03 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 116 (2007)." href="#footnote6_i5yjqtw">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_ywb5mp0" title="R.R. v. Poland, No. 27617/04 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 200 (2011)." href="#footnote7_ywb5mp0">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_p6htapa" title="Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, paras. 41-42(e), E/C.12/SVK/CO/3 (2019)." href="#footnote8_p6htapa">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_kr300ly"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref1_kr300ly">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_lgz19h1"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref2_lgz19h1">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_q02k8ch"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref3_q02k8ch">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_rmt7cqn"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref4_rmt7cqn">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_jerwbdk"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref5_jerwbdk">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_i5yjqtw"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref6_i5yjqtw">6.</a> Tysiąc v. Poland, No. 5410/03 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 116 (2007).</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote7_ywb5mp0"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref7_ywb5mp0">7.</a> R.R. v. Poland, No. 27617/04 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 200 (2011).</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote8_p6htapa"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref8_p6htapa">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