Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

August-18-99

IN, AZ Sued Over Abortion Funding

The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy filed lawsuits against the states of Indiana and Arkansas Monday in an effort to force state-funding for abortions that are deemed medically necessary. CRLP is representing two clinics and two doctors in the Indiana suit, and eight Phoenix and Tucson health care providers in the Arizona suit.

Indiana currently banned the use of state funds for all abortions except those deemed necessary to save a woman's life or those induced by rape or incest. The lawsuit charges that Indiana's state constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all persons by discriminating against women who suffer from conditions like hypertension, heart disease, cancer and diabetes. "The funding ban forces physicians in Indiana who treat low-income pregnant women with these and other health problems to deny these women abortions, to perform medically indicated abortions for free or very-low cost ... or to wait, closely monitoring the patient's health, until she delivers or the pregnancy becomes life-threatening so that an abortion is reimbursable," read court documents.

The Arizona suit argues that while the state "fully funds child-birth related costs, it routinely denies abortions to women with pre-existing health conditions." As does the state of Indiana, Arizona uses funds to covers the cost of abortions only when the pregnancy is life-threatening, or in cases of rape or incest.

CRLP attorney Bebe Anderson explained, "Some low-income women need abortions in order to prevent damage to their health. Sadly, Arizona denies needy women in these circumstances funding for medically necessary abortions ... This discriminatory treatment harms low-income women's health and infringes upon their constitutional rights"

Currently, 18 states fund abortions for low-income women who undergo them for health reasons, 13 of which are doing so only because court orders force them to.

Media Resources: Kaiser Family Foundation and Indianapolis Star - August 17, 1999


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

1/23/2015 #HeForShe Campaign Launches Pilot Effort Aimed at Institutional Equality - The United Nations' gender equality campaign #HeForShe has launched a new program called IMPACT 10X10X10. United Nations Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson, together with UN Women Executive DirectorPhumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, introduced the one-year pilot effort aimed at encouraging corporations, universities, and governments to play an active role in enhancing women's empowerment and equality in Davos, Switzerland today at the World Economic Forum. "Women need to be equal participants in our homes, societies, in our governments, and in our workplaces," Watson said. First introduced in September, HeForShe is a solidarity movement that calls on men and boys to confront gender inequalities that face women and girls globally. . . .
 
1/22/2015 BREAKING: House to Vote on Abortion Coverage Ban - After they were forced to scrap plans for a 20-week abortion ban, House Republican leaders decided late last night to instead ram through a vote today on a different extreme anti-abortion bill. House Republicans are now pushing HR 7, a bill promoted as a ban on federal funding of abortion that would actually prevent women from using their own money to purchase health insurance that includes abortion care. . . .
 
1/22/2015 House Cancels Abortion Ban After GOP Congresswomen Drop Support - House Republicans cancelled plans to vote on a 20-week ban on abortion after Republican Congresswomen removed their names publicly as co-sponsors of the bill. The vote on the unconstitutional 20-week ban had originally been scheduled for today, the anniversary of Roe v. . . .