NARAL Pro-Choice America

June 27, 2016June 27, 2016

SCOTUS abortion ruling has RI impact

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Local reactions to the Supreme Court decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which is being hailed as the most important reproductive rights decision in decades, have started to come in. Arguing that “…it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions,” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan in the 5-3 decision that struck down a controversial law that closed 75 percent of abortion clinics in Texas.

Breyer wrote the opinion, saying, “Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

The full statement from Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island:

Today, June 27, 2016, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional right to abortion. In its 5-3 ruling on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court struck dangerous restrictions on abortion providers in Texas.

While the Court’s decision ultimately does not affect Rhode Island women and families today, Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island warns that existing Rhode Island laws and an anti-abortion rights majority in the General Assembly threaten reproductive freedom for Rhode Island residents.

“The Supreme Court made it clear that politicians cannot pass laws to block access to safe, legal abortion. Yet today’s victory does not undo the past five years of damage and restrictions already written into law across the country and what is at stake this fall in Rhode Island,” said Craig O’Connor, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, Rhode Island with Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island. “We will continue to fight restrictions on safe, legal abortion on behalf of all people in Rhode Island. This year, Rhode Islanders will make it known at the polls that anti-abortion politicians have no place in the Rhode Island State House.”

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling protected access to safe, legal abortion by blocking two unconstitutional Texas restrictions. As the Court recognized, “neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes.”

In Rhode Island, several anti-abortion laws exist that have real world effects on abortion access, for example, the prohibition on state employee’s health insurance from covering abortion. In fact, language in Article 1, Section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution explicitly states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.” Therefore, if ultimately the Supreme Court reverses its position on Roe v. Wade, there could be very real and very devastating repercussions throughout Rhode Island.

“Physicians and patients must be free to make informed and medically-appropriate decisions without interference from ill-informed legislation,” said Jennifer Villavicencio, MD, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). “Abortion is a fundamental aspect of women’s health care and must be protected. Rhodes Islanders need to ask their State Senators and State Representatives where they stand on abortion rights and reproductive freedom.”

Steven Brown, Executive Director with the ACLU of Rhode Island, said that the ACLU of Rhode Island has sued the state more than six times over restrictive abortion laws since Roe v. Wade. Brown said that although each suit has been successful, “much work remains to be done to make our state a place that respects reproductive freedom.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America – in its annual “Who Decides” scorecard – labeled the RI House and Senate anti-abortion. NARAL also downgraded Rhode Island to an F rating on reproductive rights – from a previous D+ rating. NARAL awarded the same score to Texas.

According to The Guttmacher Institute, politicians have passed 316 restrictions on safe, legal abortion at the state level since 2011.

Rev. David A. Ames, Priest-in-Charge at All Saints’ Memorial Church in Providence and Member of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Clergy Advocacy Board said that all people have “an inherent right to reproductive health care.” Ames explained, “We must continue working to expand reproductive freedom in Rhode Island.”

The RI ACLU’s Steve Brown offered an additional statement, saying, “We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down these cruel and insincere efforts to interfere with a woman’s basic constitutional right. But this is hardly the end of the matter. Since Roe v. Wade was handed down, the ACLU of Rhode Island has been forced to sue the state at least half a dozen times over restrictive abortion laws. Although every one of those suits has been successful, Rhode Island continues to impose significant barriers to a woman’s right to choose, allowable under other U.S. Supreme Court rulings. As a result, much work remains to be done to make our state a place that respects reproductive freedom.”

January 22, 2016January 22, 2016

NARAL demotes Raimondo to ‘mixed choice’ on repro rights

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

NARAL Pro-Choice America (NARAL) rated Governor Gina Raimondo as “mixed-choice” in their recent report, a step down from her previous rating as “pro-choice.” Raimondo had run as a pro-choice candidate, earning the endorsement of Planned Parenthood Votes RI PAC and Emily’s List.

In Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States, NARAL rates each of the states with an over all grade. Rhode Island received a failing grade of F. Massachusetts and New Hampshire received a C+, Vermont and Maine a B+ and Connecticut an A-. Rhode Island’s failing grade makes it, to borrow a favorite word of Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s, an “outlier.”

The report notes that “Rhode Island enacted a measure that restricts insurance coverage of abortion in the state insurance exchange” in 2015, a reference to Raimondo’s behind the scenes budget shenanigans that ultimately resulted in an estimated 9000 people losing their abortion coverage under Obamacare. This story was covered here on RI Future first, and received scant attention elsewhere.

NARAL, a non-profit that engages in political action and advocacy efforts to oppose restrictions and expand access to abortion, has three ratings for governors and legislative bodies: pro-choice, mixed choice and anti-choice. Both the Rhode Island House of Representatives and the Rhode Island Senate were rated anti-choice.

All three Democratic candidates for president are running on strong pro-choice platforms. Hillary Clinton recently won the endorsement of Planned Parenthood and Bernie Sanders called for an expansion of Planned Parenthood funding, Raimondo’s mixed-choice rating puts her badly out of step with the national Democratic Party.

As of this writing a request for comment from the governor’s office has gone unanswered.

January 20, 2016January 20, 2016

Reproductive freedom still elusive in Rhode Island

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v Wade ensured that women have the right to reproductive freedom. This opinion was reaffirmed in 1992 when the Court ruled that “throughout this century, this Court also has held that the fundamental right of privacy protects citizens against governmental intrusion in such intimate family matters as procreation, childrearing, marriage, and contraceptive choice…and this Court correctly applied these principles to a woman’s right to choose abortion.”

Our views of women’s equality, participation in the labor force, and control over one’s own body have shifted dramatically in the past five decades. In 1965, only married women had contraceptive rights guaranteed by Griswold v. Connecticut. It took until 1972, a year before Roe, for the Supreme Court to rule that unmarried women had the right to birth control pills.

Prior to Roe, thousands of women died in the United States because they were forced to seek abortion in unsafe conditions. Women of color and those of limited economic means were particularly at risk of losing their life from an illegal abortion. Affluent women, however, were able to travel overseas or to states where abortions were legal.

Unfortunately, the gains made to protect women’s reproductive care – from access to abortion to affordable, accessible birth control – continue to be threatened by those who aim to take away a woman’s right to determine what is best for her own health and her own life.

In state legislatures across the country, opponents of reproductive freedom continue to gain ground. In the past five years, state legislatures have passed over 280 laws restricting a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion. Many of these laws intervene in the physician-patient relationship, requiring a woman’s doctor to provide her with inaccurate medical information. Other laws add unnecessary red tape to physicians’ practices and create hurdles to providing women with health care. The effect has been to increase costs and close clinics. In parts of the United States, women are once again traveling hours to access health care.

Some of the most egregious laws have been enacted in Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in early March and this case is likely to be the most important decision about abortion rights since Roe itself. Attorneys General from twelve states, including our neighbors in Connecticut and Massachusetts, filed an amicus brief asking the Court to invalidate the Texas laws.

While we have not seen similar roll backs enacted in Rhode Island, women’s autonomy is still at risk. In 2013, the Rhode Island General Assembly attempted to create Choose Life license plates that would support “pregnancy crisis centers” and religious institutions that lobby against reproductive rights. The bill was vetoed by Governor Chafee. Just last week, a “fetal heartbeat” bill was introduced into the Rhode Island House that, if passed, could potentially criminalize abortion.

Even without new laws, however, the ones we currently have significantly curtail a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. Women under 18 must receive parental consent to have an abortion. Though it’s been found to be unconstitutional, Rhode Island law still says a woman must tell her husband of plans for an abortion, even if doing so would put her life at risk. Thousands of Rhode Islanders do not have health insurance that covers abortion because state law prohibits health insurance plans available to state and municipal employees from covering it. Our state also prohibits Medicaid from covering abortions in most circumstances.

Rhode Island’s constitution provides equal protection under the laws, stating that “no otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of race, gender or handicap be subject to discrimination by the state, its agents or any person or entity doing business with the state.” There’s just one caveat: such protections do not apply to a woman’s access to abortion. In New England, Rhode Island sticks out like a sore thumb: our state receives a grade of D+ from NARAL Pro-Choice America, because our laws do not adequately protect reproductive freedom. By contrast, even conservative states like Alaska and West Virginia get Bs, because their constitutions provide stronger protections.

Just as they did 50 years ago, these current and proposed restrictions on reproductive rights disproportionately affect middle and low income Rhode Islanders. While some women can travel to neighboring states and privately pay for health care, many cannot. As we look back and see how far we’ve come on our march for reproductive freedom, let’s not forget that we still have far to go.