Help Stop Anti-Choice Legislation From Being Enacted Into Law!

In an eleventh hour maneuver, Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate has announced plans to bring anti-choice legislation, S. 403, to the Senate Floor for debate and vote.

This dangerous and unconstitutional legislation passed the House of Representatives earlier this week, and if it passes in the Senate, it would be signed into law by the President. However, we have an opportunity to protect teens and prevent this law from going in to effect this year. The Senate will be voting tonight on a cloture motion, which must pass with 60 votes in order to allow the Senate to proceed with a vote on S. 403. Therefore, if enough Senators vote “NO” on cloture, we can stop the Teen Endangerment Act from coming to the Floor.

Please call your Senators today and urge them to vote NO on cloture!
The Capitol Switchboard can be reached at 202.224.3121

>View talking points and let us know you made calls to your Senators

California: Vote No on Proposition 85!

Last November, California voters rejected a parental notification ballot initiative by a margin of 52.6% to 47.4%. Unfortunately, proponents of the initiative managed to place it on the ballot with similar wording again this November. If the proposition passes, the health and safety of California teens may be placed in danger. While parents rightly want to be involved in the decisions of their teenage daughters, good family communication cannot be imposed by the government. Rather than tell their parents, some young women may resort to self-induced or back-alley abortions, risking serious injury and even death.

>Learn more about the dangers of mandating parental involvement and visit the website of the No on Proposition 85 Campaign to learn more about this initiative.

NAF Condemns Passage of the Teen Endangerment Act

Last night NAF issued this press release:

Washington, DC - Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that combines the Child Custody Protection Act, which was passed by the U.S. Senate this past summer, with provisions substantially similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives last year. This callous legislation, more aptly called The Teen Endangerment Act, could endanger teens and violate their constitutional rights. Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, released the following statement condemning this harmful legislation:



Tonight, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives chose anti-choice politics over protecting the health and safety of our teens with their passage of the Teen Endangerment Act. This legislation would make it a federal crime for a person other than a parent to help a minor from certain states obtain an abortion in another state if the minor has not fulfilled the parental involvement requirements of her home state.

In many cases where a teen is not comfortable involving her parent, she reaches out to trusted aunts, sisters, grandmothers, or other friends as a resource. However, the Teen Endangerment Act effectively removes this alternative and prohibits anyone except a parent from taking a minor across certain state lines for an abortion if the teen has not already met her home state's parental involvement requirements. As a result, a teen may be compelled to pursue drastic alternatives in order to avoid involving her parents, or she may encounter dangerous delays as she attempts to navigate the legal system and obtain a judicial bypass.

The Teen Endangerment Act also places burdensome restrictions on doctors, and puts them at risk for criminal and civil liability. On behalf of health care providers, and the teens for whom they care, we condemn the House for passing this dangerous legislation.

NAF Urges Representatives in the House to Vote Against the Teen Endangerment Act

Here is the press release we issued today on the Teen Endangerment Act

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider a federal parental notification law that combines the Child Custody Protection Act, which was passed by the U.S. Senate this past summer, with provisions substantially similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives last year. This callous legislation, more aptly called The Teen Endangerment Act, could endanger teens and violate their constitutional rights. Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, released the following statement condemning this harmful legislation:



In most instances, parents know about a teenage daughter's decision to terminate a pregnancy. However, the government cannot legislate good family communications, and parental involvement may not be a realistic option for teens who come from homes that are emotionally or physically abusive, or for those who are victims of rape or incest.

In many cases where a teen is not comfortable involving her parent, she reaches out to trusted aunts, sisters, grandmothers, or other friends as a resource. However, the Teen Endangerment Act effectively removes this alternative and prohibits anyone except a parent from taking a minor across certain state lines for an abortion if the teen has not already met her home state's parental involvement requirements. As a result, a teen may be compelled to pursue drastic alternatives in order to avoid involving her parents, or she may encounter dangerous delays as she attempts to navigate the legal system and obtain a judicial bypass.

The Teen Endangerment Act also contains onerous notification requirements that place an unprecedented burden on health care providers. Its requirements operate differently depending on the laws of the teen's home state, and compliance with this provision essentially would require doctors to become experts on every U.S. state's abortion laws. In addition, teens may be forced to comply with two different state's laws; in other situations, some teens may not even have the option of seeking a judicial bypass in lieu of informing their parents.

The Teen Endangerment Act threatens the welfare of young women by isolating them from trusted adults and creating delays and burdens that could endanger young women's health. Further, it places burdensome restrictions on doctors, and puts them at risk for criminal and civil liability. On behalf of health care providers, and the teens for whom they care, we are urging Representatives to oppose this dangerous legislation.

ACLU, NYCLU, and National Abortion Federation Call on U.S. Supreme Court to Hold Women's Health Paramount in Federal Abortion Ban Challenge

Here is the press release we issued today with the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union:

The American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court calling on the Court to continue to hold women's health paramount when it hears argument on November 8th in challenges to a federal ban on abortion. These groups urged the Court to affirm lower court decisions striking down the ban.

"This law prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy that doctors say are safe and among the best to protect women's health," said Vicki Saporta, NAF President and CEO. "We hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the danger this ban poses to women's health and allow doctors to continue to make decisions based on their best medical judgment."

The Court is set to review two challenges to the federal abortion ban - called the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act by its sponsors - during the 2006 Term: Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians and decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in July 2005, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country and decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in October 2005. Both circuit courts struck down the ban.

A third challenge to the federal abortion ban, NAF v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In January 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that the ban requires a health exception and asked for further legal briefing to determine how to remedy the violation. That case is now on hold as the other two cases go before the Supreme Court.

"Decisions involving pregnancy and medical care should be left to a woman and her doctor," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Such decisions should not be mandated by politicians."

Medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose the federal ban.

Congress passed the federal ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite the numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including a decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart. Courts have consistently struck down the bans for two reasons: their broad language prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy, and they lack exceptions to protect women's health.

Today's brief in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the second friend-of-the-court brief filed by the ACLU and NAF. On August 11, 2006, both organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Gonzales v. Carhart.

NAF is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. NAF members care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year in the United States and work at clinics, doctors' offices, and hospitals throughout the country, including premier teaching hospitals.

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The NYCLU is the New York affiliate of the ACLU.

For more information, visit: www.federalabortionban.org

Lack of Abortion Access in Maine

While Maine has few abortion restrictions, there is a lack of abortion providers.

In Maine, nearly two-thirds of counties lack an abortion provider and in the counties where there are providers, many only offer abortion care during the first trimester. With this lack of access, many women often travel to other states for abortion care.

Throughout the U.S., there is a shortage of providers willing to perform abortions and a declining number of hospitals that provide abortion services. This can make it extremely difficult for women to obtain care, especially in rural areas.

> Read more on NAF’s website about our concerns about the shortage of abortion providers

Abortion Clinics in Alabama

An Associated Press article examines how it has become increasingly difficult for abortion clinics in Alabama to find backup physicians to work at their clinics, as providers’ face hostility, harassment, and threats of violence.

The article cites our statistics on violence,which we have been compiling against abortion providers since 1977. Our comprehensive database is an invaluable resource that enables us to detect changes in the patterns and trends in anti-abortion activities.

Québec Decides Not to Appeal Abortion Ruling

The Government of Québec has decided not to appeal the August ruling of the Québec Superior Court ordering the Government of Québec to pay more than $13 million to women in Québec who had paid to obtain abortion care since May 2, 1999. The Court concluded that the Government of Québec violated its own legislation by only partially paying for abortions when obtained in certain women’s or private clinics, a service covered under Quebec’s Health Insurance Act.

Washington Post Examines Crisis Pregnancy Centers Tactics

The Washington Post had a front page story on Saturday on the tactics of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs).

The article cited NAF’s concerns about deceptive strategies at CPCs and quoted me as saying:

"They can set up a waiting room and an exam room, but that doesn't mean they employ actual medical practices."

> View NAF’s comprehensive report, Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Affront to Choice that detailed the many ways CPCs have deceived and intimidated women

Missouri Supreme Court to Hear Parental Consent Case

A state law intended to discourage teenagers from obtaining out-of-state abortions will be argued September 13th before the Missouri Supreme Court.

The law would allow parents to sue individuals who assist teens in avoiding Missouri's parental consent abortion requirements. The law has not taken effect and has been under a court injunction since it was passed last September.

New Abortion Rules in Texas for Minors

Unmarried girls under the age of 18 in Texas who wish to obtain abortion care will now need a parent to sign a six-page consent form and get the form notarized before they can have the procedure.

Parental involvement laws pose a serious threat to the health of young women, and restrictive abortion laws may worsen family communication rather than promote it. Even without state laws, most parents know about their daughters’ decisions to have abortions. The young women who do not tell their parents often do so for compelling reasons such as emotional or physical abuse or incest. Rather than tell their parents, some teenagers resort to unsafe, illegal abortions, or try to perform the abortion themselves. In doing so, they risk serious injury and death.

In addition, teenagers are already more likely than older women to delay seeking reproductive health care. When teens know that they are forced by law to tell their parents or get their permission before obtaining care, they are less likely to access reproductive health care services in a timely manner. When teens know that they are forced by law to tell their parents or get their permission before obtaining care, that delay is compounded Although abortion is extremely safe, it is safest when completed earlier in pregnancy. Delays caused by these laws can result in increased health risks.

> Learn more about the dangers of parental involvement laws