Congress will reconvene tomorrow at noon after a long recess, with anti-abortion legislation and confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees on its agenda. While Congress will focus on such issues as tax cuts and the potential war with Iraq, the Senate, under the new leadership of Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), is likely to vote on a ban on the so-called “partial-birth” abortion. The bill, HR 4965, has already passed the House, but had been kept off the floor by the Democratic leadership in the Senate last year. Frist, a retired heart surgeon, has a long history of support for banning “partial-birth” abortion and has a perfect rating on major votes by the National Right to Life Committee, according to the New York Times.
The “partial-birth” abortion ban has been widely criticized for broad language that does not offer exceptions for the life or health of the mother. The phrase “partial-birth” abortion is an inaccurate and inflammatory term invented by the right wing. “Partial birth” abortion does not refer to any particular medical procedure and the term is not recognized in the medical community, according to the College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Abortion procedure bans such as these aim to outlaw or significantly chip away at a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal medical procedure. The House bill does not include exceptions for the health of the mother, despite the fact that the US Supreme Court overturned a similar Nebraska ban in Stenburg v. Carhart, citing the lack of a health exception.
The Senate will also likely consider the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” which makes knowingly or unknowingly harming or killing a zygote, embryo or fetus while attacking a pregnant woman, during the commission of a federal crime, a separate and punishable crime. The “Child Custody Protection Act,” which makes it a federal crime for any person other than a parent to transport a minor across state lines to have an abortion, is another issue the Senate will most likely face this year, according to Salon. In addition, the Senate will face the “Abortion Non-Discrimination Act,” allowing hospitals to opt out of complying with existing abortion-related laws. The Feminist Majority, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and Planned Parenthood as well as other abortion rights groups oppose the conscience clause bill because it could threaten women’s health by allowing facilities to refuse to provide abortion services even to protect the life or health of a woman. These bills have all already passed in the House. Ken Connor, president of the right-wing Family Research Council, told the Times that he believes that Frist, as a doctor, will be especially effective for the anti-abortion movement—“When he speaks on these issues, he does so with great authority, great expertise, and now with great clout,” Connor said.
Media Resources: New York Times 1/2/03; Salon 1/3/03; Los Angeles Times 1/5/03; Feminist Daily News Wire
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall.
The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies.
Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .