Clinton Firm on Protecting Health of Women in Late-Term Abortion Debate
In the face of renewed opposition to the rare D&X abortion procedure, President Clinton is standing by his decision last spring to veto legislation that would have banned the procedure with no exception to save a woman’s health. At a moving ceremony in which women who’d had the procedure told how it save their lives and future fertility, Clinton vetoed the ban last April because it only allowed the procedure if no other procedure would save the woman’s life, but it made no exception for a woman’s health. A new bill, also lacking a health exemption, was introduced in the House last week. At a press conference on March 8, Clinton said of the new bill, it “might not work to reduce the overall number of abortions at all, but in the end what it could do is every year to take a few hundred women and wreck their lives and wreck the possibility that they could have further children.”
On Sunday, March 10 U.S. Roman Catholic Cardinals urged President Clinton in an open letter to sign the ban, claiming that a health exemption is too broad. Planned Parenthood of New York City Alexander Sanger said that not allowing a woman to have a surgical procedure when her health is threatened would be to deny the woman her constitutional rights.
Media Resources: Reuters - March 10, 1997, The New York Times - March 10, 1997
7/1/2015 Women's Rights Activists are Suing the Kenyan Government for Reproductive Rights - A woman in Kenya is suing the Kenyan government for failure to provide safe and legal abortions, which caused her daughter - a 15-year-old rape victim - to suffer a kidney failure after undergoing the procedure illegally.
Currently, there are four petitioners on the case: the mother of the survivor, the Federation of Women Lawyers-Kenya, and two other women's rights advocates. . . .
6/30/2015 Supreme Court Ruling Prevents Gerrymandering in Arizona - In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Ginsburg this morning, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, allowing the use of independent state commissions that draw federal congressional districts, taking that power away from the state legislature.
This gives states an opportunity to deal with partisan gerrymandering by giving an independent commission power to draw federal congressional districts.
In 2000, Arizona voters amended their constitution, shifting the responsibility of drawing congressional districts, previously held by the state legislature, to a panel called the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. . . .