Abortion https://reproductiverights.org/taxonomy/term/186/all en District Court Opinion - County of Santa Clara v. HHS https://reproductiverights.org/document/court-opinion-county-santa-clara-v-hhs <span>District Court Opinion - County of Santa Clara v. HHS</span> <div class="field field--name-field-case-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Case Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/court-opinions-orders" hreflang="en">Court Opinions &amp; Orders</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Wed, 11/20/2019 - 10:24</span> <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-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/OCR%20Order.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=128016" title="OCR Order.pdf">Opinion - County of Santa Clara v. HHS</a></span> </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/other-barriers" hreflang="en">Other Barriers</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/other-barriers-0" hreflang="en">Other Barriers</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/maternal-health" hreflang="en">Maternal Health</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" /> Wed, 20 Nov 2019 15:24:18 +0000 ehorwitz 58800 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 Serving those who serve issue brief - Restrictions on abortion access for servicemembers, veterans, and their dependents https://reproductiverights.org/document/serving-those-who-serve-issue-brief-restrictions-abortion-access-servicemembers-veterans <span>Serving those who serve issue brief - Restrictions on abortion access for servicemembers, veterans, and their dependents</span> <div class="field field--name-field-publication-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Publication Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/books-reports" hreflang="en">Books &amp; Reports</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Mon, 11/18/2019 - 16:55</span> <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>Servicemembers, veterans &amp; their families face abortion bans and prohibitions on insurance coverage when trying to access these legal medical services. This issue brief addresses the unique barriers individuals insured under the military health insurance program (TRICARE) or obtaining healthcare through the Veterans Health Association face in accessing abortion services, including the many institutional, financial and logistical barriers they must overcome.<br /><br /> Federal law prohibits the Department of Defense from providing abortion services at military treatment facilities, and the TRICARE insurance program from covering such services, except when a pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or when the life of the pregnant person is at risk. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which provides health services to veterans, does not provide or pay for abortion services under any circumstances.<br /><br /> “I am a member of the armed forces currently serving in Afghanistan. I am here with my husband and was unaware that the pills I take to prevent malaria can counteract my birth control pills. My husband is as shocked as I am. We do not want a child now; we have a job to do here. Due to the military’s no-abortion policy, I am pretty desperate. It isn’t like you can even go off base here, and you can’t just say you need medical leave without saying why.”<br /><br /> “I found out I was pregnant in the months leading up to my deployment and didn’t feel comfortable telling my doctor or chain of command for fear of retribution. I took a day of liberty after finally talking to my chief about it, he was nice but it was incredibly uncomfortable and later on he told the entire chiefs’ mess about it.” <br /><br /> This issue brief is the first in a series on reproductive health care access for servicemembers, veterans and their families.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Serving%20Those%20Who%20Serve_Abortion%20Access.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=468314" title="Serving Those Who Serve_Abortion Access.pdf">Restrictions on abortion access for servicemembers, veterans, and their dependents</a></span> </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/engaging-policymakers" hreflang="en">Engaging Policymakers</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:55:00 +0000 ehorwitz 58798 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_ocrobm7" 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_ocrobm7">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_r0x0la5" title="World Health Organization, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 6, 34, 64." href="#footnote2_r0x0la5">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_pssbsrm" 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_pssbsrm">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_6p09t1y" title="World Health Organization, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 95." href="#footnote4_6p09t1y">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_pqcgq1l" 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_pqcgq1l">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_uxyfauz" title="Tysiąc v. Poland, No. 5410/03 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 116 (2007)." href="#footnote6_uxyfauz">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_2b8k3og" title="R.R. v. Poland, No. 27617/04 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 200 (2011)." href="#footnote7_2b8k3og">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_j42bzk9" title="Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, paras. 41-42(e), E/C.12/SVK/CO/3 (2019)." href="#footnote8_j42bzk9">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_ocrobm7"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref1_ocrobm7">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_r0x0la5"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref2_r0x0la5">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_pssbsrm"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref3_pssbsrm">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_6p09t1y"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref4_6p09t1y">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_pqcgq1l"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref5_pqcgq1l">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_uxyfauz"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref6_uxyfauz">6.</a> Tysiąc v. Poland, No. 5410/03 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 116 (2007).</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote7_2b8k3og"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref7_2b8k3og">7.</a> R.R. v. Poland, No. 27617/04 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 200 (2011).</li> <li class="footnote" id="footnote8_j42bzk9"><a class="footnote-label" href="#footnoteref8_j42bzk9">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 Joint NGO letter on Slovakia https://reproductiverights.org/document/joint-ngo-letter-slovakia <span>Joint NGO letter on Slovakia </span> <div class="field field--name-field-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/shadow-letters-reports" hreflang="en">Shadow Letters &amp; Reports</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Mon, 11/18/2019 - 10:18</span> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Joint%20NGO%20letter_Slovakia_Bill%201729%20%282019%29_final%20updated.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=55913" title="Joint NGO letter_Slovakia_Bill 1729 (2019)_final updated.pdf">Join NGO Letter</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <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-above"> <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-above"> <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 15:18:24 +0000 ehorwitz 58796 at https://reproductiverights.org Serving Those Who Serve https://reproductiverights.org/document/serving-those-who-serve_ <span>Serving Those Who Serve</span> <div class="field field--name-field-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/briefing-papers" hreflang="en">Briefing Papers</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/511" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eugena@defmethod.io</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/15/2019 - 16:28</span> <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>Servicemembers, veterans &amp; their families face abortion bans and prohibitions on insurance coverage when trying to access these legal medical services. This issue brief addresses the unique barriers individuals insured under the military health insurance program (TRICARE) or obtaining healthcare through the Veterans Health Association face in accessing abortion services, including the many institutional, financial and logistical barriers they must overcome.<br /><br /> Federal law prohibits the Department of Defense from providing abortion services at military treatment facilities, and the TRICARE insurance program from covering such services, except when a pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or when the life of the pregnant person is at risk. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which provides health services to veterans, does not provide or pay for abortion services under any circumstances.<br /><br /> “I am a member of the armed forces currently serving in Afghanistan. I am here with my husband and was unaware that the pills I take to prevent malaria can counteract my birth control pills. My husband is as shocked as I am. We do not want a child now; we have a job to do here. Due to the military’s no-abortion policy, I am pretty desperate. It isn’t like you can even go off base here, and you can’t just say you need medical leave without saying why.”<br /><br /> “I found out I was pregnant in the months leading up to my deployment and didn’t feel comfortable telling my doctor or chain of command for fear of retribution. I took a day of liberty after finally talking to my chief about it, he was nice but it was incredibly uncomfortable and later on he told the entire chiefs’ mess about it.” <br /><br /> This issue brief is the first in a series on reproductive health care access for servicemembers, veterans and their families.<br />  </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Serving%20Those%20Who%20Serve_Abortion%20Access.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=468314">Serving Those Who Serve_Abortion Access.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <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-above"> <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-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/engaging-policymakers" hreflang="en">Engaging Policymakers</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:28:33 +0000 eugena@defmethod.io 58795 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 Petition - Trust Women Oklahoma City v. Hunter https://reproductiverights.org/document/petition-trust-women-oklahoma-city-v-hunter <span>Petition - Trust Women Oklahoma City v. Hunter</span> <div class="field field--name-field-case-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Case Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/court-filings-pleadings-motions-briefs" hreflang="en">Court Filings: Pleadings, Motions &amp; Briefs</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/08/2019 - 13:35</span> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/PLD.2019-11-08.PETITION.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=1455410" title="PLD.2019-11-08.PETITION.pdf">Petition - Trust Women Oklahoma City v. Hunter</a></span> </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 18:35:30 +0000 ehorwitz 58788 at https://reproductiverights.org Global Declaration on Abortion - Nairobi Summit on ICPD25 https://reproductiverights.org/document/global-declaration-abortion-nairobi-summit-icpd25 <span>Global Declaration on Abortion - Nairobi Summit on ICPD25</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Thu, 11/07/2019 - 12:37</span> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Global%20Declaration.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=304661" title="Global Declaration.pdf">Global Declaration on Abortion</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <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-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <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, 07 Nov 2019 17:37:51 +0000 ehorwitz 58787 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