The primary struggle for reproductive choice has shifted to
the state level, with new legislation limiting access to reproductive
health care traveling from state to state until enough momentum
develops to bring it to the national arena. Many states currently
have restrictions on abortion that could result in outright
bans if Roe v. Wade is overturned. In such a climate, we need
healthy state organizations to stop each new threat as it
arises. RCRC works at the state level with our affiliates.
We currently have affiliates in 26 states. State affiliates
work together with people of all faiths to protect reproductive
choice. Learn more.
Washington
State regulations that require pharmacies to dispense birth control, emergency contraception and all other medications in accordance with physician prescriptions uphold the right to religious freedom of both pharmacists and patients, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has told a federal appeals court. The case involves a suit filed by Ralph's Thriftway and others to reverse regulations requiring all pharmacies to maintain plans and procedures that enable patients to obtain health care and medication in accordance with the patient's needs and individual beliefs even when a pharmacy employee has divergent views.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice filed its friend-of-the-court brief March 11, 2008, in the groundbreaking Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky case in conjunction with Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, interfaith and secular organizations and individual religious leaders. The case is believed to be the first to challenge the contention that pharmacists have a right to refuse to fill prescriptions based on personal religious views. The Seattle firm of Perkins Coie LLP submitted the brief on behalf of RCRC and the endorsing organizations and individuals. Read the text of the brief.
The Washington State Board of Pharmacy adopted the regulations after several pharmacists in Washington and other states refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, emergency contraception and other medications. In its brief, RCRC notes that the state’s pharmacy regulations accommodate pharmacists’ personal religious beliefs to the greatest extent possible while still protecting patients’ individual beliefs and timely access to health care. A pharmacist can, for example, pass a prescription along to a colleague at the same store.
Pointing out the diversity of religious views about health care, RCRC notes that the pharmacists who object to filling certain prescriptions demand protection of their religious convictions but do not seek “the same protection for the convictions of other members of the population, most notably patients.” The brief also states:
“The tremendous disparity in beliefs regarding health care also supports government regulation that accommodates all religious and personal views and practices to the greatest extent possible while preventing harm to others.”
South Dakota
South Dakota Smokeout?
May 5, 2008
"Vote Yes for Life," a South Dakota anti-abortion group, has succeeded in collecting enough signatures to once again put a near-total abortion ban on the South Dakota ballot. The initiative differs slightly from the 2006 initiative, in that it has narrow exceptions for rape, incest and if the health of the woman is threatened.
March 6, 2007
The South Dakota Senate State Affairs Committee has voted
8-1 against a bill that would ban abortions in the state except
in cases of rape, incest or to save the live of the pregnant
woman. However, the bill’s supporters have said they
will still try to force the bill out of committee to the full
Senate, a move known as a “smokeout” in that state.
Last year, voters defeated a ban by 56%-44% that would have
allowed abortion only if a pregnant woman’s life was
in danger.
- The current bill, which was passed by the House 45-25,
would allow abortions to be performed until the 17th week
of pregnancy in cases of incest or rape. However, it puts
obstacles in the way of a rape or incest survivor obtaining
an abortion.
- Rape survivors must report the rape to authorities within
50 days and physicians would be required to confirm the
report with authorities, as well as to take blood from aborted
fetuses and give that information to police for DNA testing.
- For incest survivors, a doctor would be required to obtain
the woman's consent to report the crime along with the identity
of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed.
- Blood samples from fetuses also would have to be provided
to police.
- The measure also would allow a pregnant woman to undergo
an abortion if her health could be seriously damaged by
carrying the pregnancy to term. Under the bill, a doctor
from another practice must agree that the woman's health
is in jeopardy before the abortion could be performed.
November 2006
Activists in South Dakota mobilized a successful grassroots
effort to refer the recently-passed state abortion ban to
the November ballot. Voters in South Dakota rejected the extreme
abortion ban by a vote of 55%-45%.
The ban would have prohibited abortions for victims of rape and incest and women whose health was at risk. The only exception would be an abortion to save a pregnant woman’s life. It was important to voters to know that some local ministers thought that it was far more compassionate and responsible to keep abortion legal than to force women to continue a pregnancy against their will or against the advice of their doctor.
Background
On March 6, Gov. Mike Rounds (R) of South Dakota signed a
bill into law that would prohibit all abortions in the state
except if a woman is dying. The law made South Dakota the
first state to ban all abortions except if a doctor decides
the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life. Doctors
performing an abortion would not be charged with a crime as
long as they make "reasonable medical efforts" to
"preserve both the life of the mother and the life of
her unborn child." Under changes made by the state Senate
Affairs Committee, the bill states that "a pregnant mother
and her unborn child each possess a natural and inalienable
right to life" and due process under the South Dakota
Constitution.
Planned Parenthood said it would immediately file suit
to stop it. Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in
South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each
year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota.
Supporters of the bill said it was designed as a direct challenge
to Roe. They said the timing is right to challenge the Roe
decision, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. Both have
said they oppose Roe v. Wade. In November 2006, the Supreme Court
heard another challenge to Roe v. Wade, the Federal Abortion
Ban ("Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003"), which
is expected to reveal the extent to which the high court,
with the two new Bush appointees, will restrict abortion rights.
A decision is expected in the spring of 2007.
In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic holding of
Roe v. Wade--that a woman's health and life must be protected
in any law on abortion--in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but
left open the way for restrictions. Since then, states have
passed dozens of restrictions involving mandatory notification
and counseling. The South Dakota law concludes that life begins
at conception based on medical advances over the past three
decades. Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions
to specifically protect the health of the woman, or in cases
of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment
to put the proposal in the hands of voters.
Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether
it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation
would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An
anonymous donor offered $1 million to the state to defray
the costs of litigation.
To learn about the work of RCRC and Pastors for Moral Choices in South Dakota, click here.
President Bush: Pro-Life?
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan suggested
that President Bush might not support the South Dakota ban.
He did not say the president opposes the ban, but he did say
that the president is "pro-life with three exceptions":
rape, incest, and a woman's life. The last exception is the
only one that would have allowed under the South Dakota bill.
Other States
State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky,
and Missippi introduced measures similar to South Dakota's
in 2006.
Missouri
Planned Parenthood and Missouri Religious Coalition
Stand Behind Challenge to Abortion Initiative Petition
Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri (PPMO) and the Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (MORCRC) applauded the legal challenge, filed by Mary Hickey of St. Louis, to the abortion ban initiative petition that was certified on December 7, 2007. The initiative petition was proposed by the Elliot Institute, an anti-abortion group from Illinois, and would ban abortion unless the doctor certifies in writing it is needed to prevent imminent death or other severe medical risks.
“We are fighting against the ban because it is extreme, dangerous, and clearly unconstitutional,” stated Paula Gianino, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, “but we would much rather spend our time, energy, and resources doing what we do best – providing health care to the women and men of Missouri and reducing unintended pregnancy through our family planning and comprehensive sex education programs.”
“As a mother, wife, and teacher, I am very concerned about the impact this initiative would have on Missouri families,” said Mary Hickey.
Besides banning abortion, the proposed initiative would allow the Government to interfere with the private health care decisions made between a woman and her doctor and invites lawsuits against doctors, family members and others who help a woman get abortion care.
“This is another immoral attempt to hurt women and deny them access to the professional health care they deserve,” stated the Reverend Rebecca Turner, Executive Director of Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. “Faithful people in Missouri cannot stand by and allow this attack on women.”
“Abortion bans harm women and do nothing to get to the root of the problem - unintended pregnancy. If the Elliot Institute, and Governor Blunt, truly wanted to reduce abortions in Missouri then they would join with Planned Parenthood and focus on preventing unintended pregnancies instead of proposing a ban on abortion,” said Tonia Stubblefield, CEO of Tri-Rivers Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood and the Missouri Religious Coalition will do everything we can to protect access to safe and legal abortion care in Missouri. “We have always been here for women” said Peter Brownlie, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, “and we will continue to fight for access to the full range of reproductive health services.”
Learn about the Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice
|
