National Abortion Federation Blog: Saporta Reporter

Lawsuit Calls for Removal of Threats to Abortion Providers

Tuesday the Justice Department asked a judge to force an anti-abortion extremist to remove postings to his website, which threaten an abortion provider in Pennsylvania. The site publishes violent threats against abortion providers as well as their names, addresses, and photographs.

Federal prosecutors say the postings violate the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

"This type of intimidation and scare tactic, regardless of one's beliefs or religious convictions, simply cannot be condoned," U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan said in a statement. "Using a public forum, such as the Internet, to incite and instruct people to kill is tantamount to a form of domestic terrorism."

This week a federal judge granted a request from Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri to temporarily block enforcement of a new Missouri law, which would impose additional regulations on abortion clinics.

While Missouri already requires abortion clinics to be licensed, the new legislation would require any facility that performs more than five first-trimester abortions a month, or any second- or third-trimester abortions, to meet the licensure requirements for an “ambulatory surgical center.” The new law would force clinics to make expensive and “medically unnecessary” renovations.

These changes are particularly unnecessary for the clinic in Kansas City, which only provides medical abortion care. U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith said it was “confusing how the state would apply the law to the Kansas City clinic,” and said, “of all the establishments that dispense medication (e.g. doctor’s offices, pharmacies), why is it only those that dispense medication for the purpose of inducing an abortion that must be prepared to perform surgery?”

A hearing is set for September 10 to determine whether this injunction will be permanent.

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals reversed a ruling Friday that would have required a Planned Parenthood clinic to present lawyers representing the family of a minor patient with the medical records of all minor patients provided with abortion care at their clinic. The court said the burden of disclosure on Planned Parenthood and its patients would exceed the value of the records and that even if the records were blacked out, “it is arguable that disclosure would result in a privacy invasion.”

This ruling is an important step in protecting the privacy of women and their medical records. The appellate court unanimously decided the records were not necessary and that there is no evidence that shows the clinic systematically and intentionally evaded its legal duties.

Today marks the one year anniversary of the FDA approval of Plan B (also known as emergency contraception) for over-the-counter sales to adults. In 2003, two FDA expert advisory committees voted overwhelmingly to recommend that Plan B be made available without a prescription, but political agendas kept the issue in heated debate for nearly three years. This approval was an important step in ensuring that women are able to access Plan B in time for it to be an effective option.

According to an Associated Press article in this week’s Washington Post, since the over-the-counter approval of Plan B: several states have enacted laws to improve rape survivors' access to the medication in hospital emergency rooms; legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to ensure that women serving in the U.S. military overseas have access to the pills at their bases; and pro-choice groups have advocated with national pharmacy chains to make it readily available.

Despite its approval, some women continue to encounter pharmacies which refuse to stock the medication, and the age restriction creates medically unjustified barriers for teens. There is still much we can do to ensure that women have access to a full range of safe reproductive health care options including timely, straightforward access to emergency contraception.

Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri has filed a federal lawsuit claiming a new Missouri law infringes on a constitutional right to abortion. They say the law could eliminate abortion services in large parts of the state by subjecting clinics to special regulations. The new law would require any facility that performs more than five first-trimester abortions a month, or any second- or third-trimester abortions, to meet the licensure requirements for an “ambulatory surgical center.”

According to Planned Parenthood CEO Peter Brownlie, “This onerous legislation has nothing to do with protecting women's health and safety…and is a blatant attempt to close down clinics and deny women their right to health care.”

This type of legislation is an example of a Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) bill. These bills subject abortion clinics to stringent regulations, which are inappropriate and unnecessary for outpatient facilities. TRAP bills are often introduced by abortion opponents who claim that abortion is an unsafe and unregulated procedure. In fact, abortion is one of the safest medical procedures provided in the United States and Canada. By implying that abortion clinics are uniquely dangerous and in need of special regulation, such bills recklessly promote an unfounded fear of abortion and their passage can result in clinics being closed to women seeking reproductive health care.

This is clearly the case in Missouri where Sen. Delbert Scott, a lead sponsor of the legislation, acknowledged: “Certainly, abortion is our target here.”

>Learn more about TRAP laws.

This month’s issue of the UK publication id21 health focus addresses the health dangers and economic impact of unsafe abortion. The issue highlights the findings of a technical meeting held at the Institute of Development Studies (UK) in April.

Unsafe abortion is a major global public health problem particularly affecting low-income women. The World Health Organization estimates that 68,000 women worldwide die from unsafe abortions annually and millions more are injured, many permanently. Ensuring safe, legal, and accessible abortion care promotes health and justice for women.

The issue also features articles on ways to reduce abortion costs to health systems and necessary advances in international abortion policy.

>View a pdf of the issue.

Today, the New England Journal of Medicine published research on the safety of medical abortion in terms of future pregnancies. The research concluded that there is no evidence that a previous medical abortion increases the risk of miscarriage, tubal pregnancy, preterm birth, or low birth weight.

>View NAF’s fact sheet on medical abortion

The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) has launched a national anti-abortion campaign, which uses a truck plastered with graphic and misleading images in the hope of advancing their beliefs.

These tactics frequently backfire and even those who oppose abortion often object to these images. According to an article in this weekend’s National Post, earlier this year, Calgary Bishop Fred Henry withdrew his support from CCBR over opposition to its practices.

NAF member and executive director of Calgary's Kensington Clinic, Celia Posyniak, told the Post such "scare tactics," don't work, since women seeking an abortion have "very compelling reasons" for doing so and will only be upset, not influenced, by the billboards.

>View our press release.

Dianne Williamson’s column in Sunday’s Worcester Telegram & Gazette demonstrates the need for an expanded buffer zone around reproductive health care facilities in Massachusetts. Under the current law, there is an 18-foot buffer zone around reproductive heath care facilities, but protesters may be within the buffer zone as long as they remain at least six feet away from clinic workers and patients. A bill in the state House of Representatives would prevent anti-abortion opponents from coming within 35 feet of clinic entrances.

As Williamson observes outside a local clinic, the current buffer zone law does not protect patients from intimidation. She recounts watching protesters yell and harass patients – even causing one woman to cry as she leaves the parking lot and enters the clinic. One protester in particular appears outside the clinic in a Grim Reaper costume, and ironically refuses to divulge his real name because he doesn’t “want to be harassed.” Unfortunately, the patients who have to walk past this masked anti-abortion extremist are not as lucky.

We know from the experience in Massachusetts and other areas of the country that creating or expanding buffer zones around health care facilities can lead to a decrease in violence and harassment, thereby ensuring the safety of patients and staff.

Paul Evans, pleaded guilty last week to attempting to bomb the Austin Women's Health Center in Austin, TX, a NAF member clinic.

On April 25, 2007, a bomb was found outside the clinic, but had not exploded. Two days later Evans was arrested for the crime.

Under a plea agreement, Evans, faces up to 40 years in federal prison.

>Learn more about abortion clinic violence