Abortion: Arkansas Blog, Arkansas Times

Appeals court strikes down 20-week abortion ban

Max Brantley — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:25:00 -0500

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the Arizona law that put a ban on abortions beginning with the 20th week of pregnancy.

This is good news for abortion rights generally, though not necessarily in Arkansas since we are in a different judicial circuit. But it should give some ammunition to fire at the new Arkansas ban on abortions at 20 weeks, a law that takes effect this summer. Legal action is being planned on that Arkansas law, but it presents more difficulties than the 12-week ban, recently enjoined by federal Judge Susan Webber Wright.

Here's the full 9th Circuit opinion.

Very few abortions are performed in Arkansas at 20 weeks or later (50 in 2011 according to state statistics) and they are not routinely provided by the centers that provide most of the abortions in the state, many of them medicine-induced abortions at the early stage of pregnancy. So the abortion providers who are plaintiffs in the 12-week suit aren't readily suited to be plaintiffs in the 20-week case, Most likely, a Jane Doe will be necessary and time will be critical, particularly to the woman, since surgical abortions provided late in pregnancy are invariably prompted by a serious medical condition of the woman or the fetus.

Arizona tried to use the same defense for its 20-week law that anti-abortionists cooked up in Arkansas for the 12-week ban. Because the law allows some exceptions, it doesn't amount to a "ban. But the 9th Circuit rejected that reasoning, saying the law still banned many abortions before viability, or the time the fetus could live outside the womb. That is prohibited by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. So far.

Hard to see how these same words from the 9th Circuit wouldn't apply in Arkansas:

The panel reversed the district court’s order denying declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiffs and held that the Constitution does not permit the Arizona legislature to prohibit abortion beginning at twenty weeks gestation, before the fetus is viable.

The panel held that under controlling Supreme Court precedent, Arizona may not deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at any point prior to viability. The panel held that Arizona House Bill 2036, enacted in April 2012, effects such a deprivation by prohibiting abortion from twenty weeks gestational age through fetal viability. The panel held that the twenty-week law is therefore unconstitutional under an unbroken stream of Supreme Court authority, beginning with Roe v. Wade and ending with Gonzales v. Carhart.

Concurring, Judge Kleinfeld stated that the current state of the law compelled him to concur, and that what controls this case is that the parties do not dispute that the twenty week line Arizona has drawn is three or four weeks prior to viability.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Practicing law with Bro. Rapert

Max Brantley — Sat, 18 May 2013 07:42:00 -0500

Sen. Jason Rapert, author of the patently unconstitutional bill to ban most abortions in Arkansas at the 12th week of pregnancy, took heart yesterday at Judge Susan Webber Wright's indication that she was inclined to uphold the part of the law that requires women seeking an abortion in the 12th week of pregnancy or later to have an ultrasound and to be shown the results of that test.

Bettina Brownstein, representing the ACLU, said she didn't think that portion of the law could be severed and kept intact because it was so intertwined with the purpose of the law, to ban abortions. It was noted that the law doesn't have a severability clause.

Bro. Rapert opined that a severability clause was automatic under Arkansas law. Given his generally poor practice as an attorney to date, I thought I'd check the fiddlin' preacher and found, shazam, he's found an acorn. From a manual of the National Conference of State Legislatures on statutory drafting rules of the various states:

Arkansas
6.1 APPLICABILITY.
(e) SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
A severability clause provides that if a part of a law is declared invalid the remaining part stays in force. A general severability clause is not necessary, and should not be used. Arkansas Code § 1‐2‐117 states that the provisions of the Arkansas Code are severable, and Arkansas Code § 1‐2‐ 205 states:
“...The provisions of each and every act enacted by the General Assembly after July 24, 1973, are declared to be severable and, unless it is otherwise specifically provided in the particular act, the invalidity of any provision of that act shall not affect other provisions of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provision”.
(f) NON‐SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
If the author does not want the provisions to be severable or does not want specific provisions to be severable, add a section declaring the provision to not be severable. Bills having a statement of non‐severability are rare.
Example:
SECTION 6. The provisions of this act are not severable, and if any provision of this act is declared invalid for any reason, then all provisions of this act shall also be invalid.

This does not fully resolve the question, but it is a strong leg for Rapert to stand on. Courts can rule against severability, however, and have done so. In the famous Malvern school choice case, a federal judge said it was impossible to sever the race-related bar to school transfers, held to be impermissible, from the rest of the act and struck the whole thing down. In that case, you can find the Arkansas Supreme Court guidance on severability.

The Arkansas Supreme Court looks to two considerations to determine severability: “(1) whether a single purpose is meant to be accomplished by the act, and (2) whether the sections of the act are interrelated and dependent upon each other.” In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill, the Arkansas Supreme Court provided further guidance, stating “it is important whether the portion of the act remaining is complete in itself and capable of being executed wholly independent of that which was rejected.”

It is laughable, of course, that Jason Rapert would say he'd be happy to testify as to his intent that a part of the law be severable. It'd have no more weight than my aging French bulldog's testimony. Legislative intent in Arkansas is demonstrated solely by the words of the statute itself.

I'm afraid, however, there's a case for arguing that the mandatory ultrasound clause is capable of being executed independently, even if it was included only to create the standard for criminalizing an abortion, which it no longer can do.

A woman seeking an abortion has no need for an ultrasound test in that she plans to terminate the pregnancy. But anti-abortion forces like to require these tests for the emotional influence the test might bring to the decision. The Guttmacher Institute, while noting that an ultrasound is not medically necessary in the first trimester, says that eight states mandate an ultrasound for women seeking abortions.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Judge Wright issues injunction against abortion law

Max Brantley — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:04:00 -0500

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new Arkansas law that was meant to bar most abortions at the 12th week of pregnancy. She ruled from the bench after about two hours of hearings.

The law is suspended while the lawsuit by abortion providers, brought by the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights, is tried, but the judge made clear that, based on evidence so far, the state was likely to lose its defense of the law.

The awarding of an injunction is a strong signal of how the case is likely to turn out because one standard is the likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

Sen. Jason Rapert, sponsor of the legislation, was on hand to caterwaul about the murderers and baby killers and plot his next round of talking points on Twitter. The lawyers whose hours will be paid by the state of Arkansas talked to reporters afterward, too. A spokesman for the attorney general had no comment on whether there'd be an appeal of the injunction.

The bill was passed over the veto of Gov. Mike Beebe, a lawyer who can read Supreme Court precedent. Judge Wright noted the precedents in her ruling and the likelihood that the law was unconstitutional. Evidence to the contrary: Jason Rapert says abortions ought to stop. Happily, I don't think he'll qualify as expert testimony.

And why did the judge think the law likely to be unconstitutional in the end? She said: "I believe the plaintiffs established this because the Supreme Court has consistently used viability as a standard with respect to any law that regulates abortion."

Leslie Peacock reports that the judge raised a question about the portion of the law that requires an ultrasound and a report to a woman about the results of that test. She asked whether that portion of the law could be severed from the abortion ban itself and said she was inclined to preserve it. Bettina Brownstein, attorney for the ACLU, objected to severing that portion of the law. The judge said she could submit a brief on the question. The idea about severability was raised in a proposed friend of the court brief submitted by an Arkansas anti-abortion group.

The state argued that the plaintiffs couldn't prove there were woman outside the exceptions allowed by the law who'd want an abortion after 12 weeks but before viability. The judge noted that the state's own data show that a significant number of abortions are performed during that period.

The judge dismissed the state's effort to use a 2007 partial-birth abortion ban case as an avenue to expand a ban before fetal viability. She said that case was about a procedure used post-viability. She sympathized with the tortured arguments raised by the attorney general's office. "I know you're in a tough position," she said.

It really is that simple. As I wrote this morning.

A news release from the Center for Reproductive Rights follows on the jump.

For the case books, the case is styled:

LOUIS JERRY EDWARDS, M.D., on
behalf of himself and his patients, ET
AL.
Plaintiffs
V.
JOSEPH M. BECK, M.D., President of
the Arkansas State Medical Board, and
his successors in office, in their official
capacities, ET AL

Women's rights in court this morning

Max Brantley — Fri, 17 May 2013 06:14:00 -0500

Leslie Newell Peacock will be in federal court for us this morning for the preliminary injunction hearing on the lawsuit challenging the new state law prohibiting most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Do the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits? They do, as Judge Susan Webber Wright telegraphed clearly in her order refusing to dismiss the lawsuit. She referenced so-far ironclad U.S. Supreme Court precedent in two benchmark cases — Roe and Casey.

Do plaintiffs also have proof of irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued, the other key standard to suspend the law? The law doesn't take effect until August. It will indisputably bring irreparable harm to women and doctors who provide abortion services, but that time lag might give the judge some time to mull the inevitable injunction.

Advance coverage in the Democrat-Gazette today included some points worth mentioning.

For one thing, I don't believe it's a certainty that the U.S. Supreme Court WILL take up this law or the North Dakota law that are frontal assaults on Roe. It could let stand the inevitable lower court precedent-based rulings striking down these invasions on women's medical autonomy.

Sen. Jason Rapert also spoke mendaciously as usual in being allowed by the newspaper to say without challenge that 93 percent of abortions kill babies. He might as well have said 100 percent, since he believes there's a baby the moment a zygote forms. Law, medicine and even many religions don't believe a "baby" exists until it is viable outside the womb. That 93 percent figure he cites presumably begins around 5 or 6 weeks, when a heartbeat can be detected. This is months shy of viability, as the 12-week limit is. According to the CDC, fewer than 2 percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks, which is still several weeks shy of fetal viablity.

Finally, I don't think the weight of legal opinion — outside Liberty University legal circles — is that the 2007 decision allowing a prohibition of so-called partial birth abortions opened the door to pre-viability abortion bans. By a 5-4 vote, that 2007 decision that allowed bans on post-viability later-term abortions indeed damaged the notion of an unfettered constitutional right to abortion. But it did nothing to disturb the Roe and Casey rulings that held rights of women paramount to a fetus that can't survive outside the womb. If it does, we ain't seen nothing yet. Bro. Rapert will be back with his 5-week ban, vaginal probes, bans on IUDs and bans on pills that might — might — prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. If they win, the damage to women will be enormous.

Or so my unlearned legal analysis goes.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Judge refuses to dismiss suit challenging new 12-week abortion limit

Max Brantley — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:00:00 -0500

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright has denied the state of Arkansas's motion to dismiss the ACLU-backed lawsuit challenging the new state law, passed over Gov. Mike Beebe's veto, to prevent most abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy.

She concluded:

Plaintiffs allege that, with certain narrow exceptions, Act 301 bans all abortions beginning at twelve weeks gestation, which they assert is a pre-viability point in a pregnancy. Plaintiffs further allege that at the twelve-week mark, a fetus has a detectible heartbeat but is still months away from the point of viability, and in Arkansas, twenty percent of abortions take place at or after twelve weeks. Accepting these allegations as true, as the Court must do at this juncture, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that the provision of Act 301 that prohibits abortions at twelve weeks gestation when a fetal heartbeat is detected impermissibly infringes a woman’s Fourteenth Amendment right to chose to terminate a pregnancy before viability. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 845-846, 112 S.Ct. at 2804 (1992)(holding that an abortion law is unconstitutional on its face if “in a large fraction of the cases in which [the law] is relevant, it will operate as a substantial obstacle to a woman's choice to undergo an abortion”)

She will proceed ~~tomorrow~~ Friday with holding a hearing on a request for an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect while the suit is being decided.

The judge's order, which you can read in full here, rejected a request for dismissal because the suit was brought by doctors. She said the Supreme Court has allowed doctors to sue to protect rights of their patients and they had standing because of potential disciplinary action against them should they perform abortions in the future.. She also said "Plaintiffs have standing to challenge Act 301 on the basis that it imposes an undue burden on their patients’ right to choose."

The state argued that because Act 301 doesn't prohibit ALL abortions at any point before viability (it allows some narrow exceptions) it was not subject to constitutional challenge. The judge also rejected that argument, saying:

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental holdings of Roe v. Wade—including the standard that the line between a woman's interest in control over her destiny and body and the state's interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn is drawn at viability—“the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection . . . . ” The Casey Court noted that although the line of viability may come earlier with advances in neonatal care, the attainment of viability continues to serve as the critical factor

Nobody has yet argued that viability is possible at 12 weeks. Arkansas also passed a law this session, not yet challenged but likely to be, that sets a 20-week cutoff for abortions.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Flash: Texas grows enlightened on women's issues

Max Brantley — Tue, 07 May 2013 12:52:00 -0500

Interesting story from Texas on the Texas legislature. Republicans, who control nearly everything in Texas, apparently suffered huge blowback from their war on women in the last legislative session that cut health care to women in the battle to destroy Planned Parenthood.

Result: A "grand bargain," engineered by a female Republican legislator from the Houston area.

No abortion bills have, so far, made it to the floor of the legislature. Plus, nobody is offering crippling amendments to the legislation to restore health services, including family planning, to women.

“A lot of people really felt they got snookered by some of the people in the pro-life movement about that family-planning issue,” said State Senator Bob Deuell, Republican of Greenville, who has been a strong advocate for restoring family-planning financing for low-income women by way of primary care.

Dr. Deuell, a primary care physician, is an ardent opponent of state money going to Planned Parenthood clinics. But he said the vitriol of some abortion opponents last session had prevented the state from pursuing good policy decisions. He recalled being compared to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, when he argued that cutting family-planning services would lead to more unwanted pregnancies, and therefore more abortions and more children living in poverty.

Texas is actually going to increase family planning spending, though no money may go to places affiliated with abortion clinics. Some direct federal grants have managed to keep some money flowing to Planned Parenthood family planning clinics.

No Arkansas Republican would believe this. Their votes were automatic on these issues, though Democratic strength in a House committee did manage to derail some of the anti-woman agenda, including a bill to stop sex education funding in Little Rock because the program was provided by Planned Parenthood.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Planned Parenthood plans to press Mike Ross on record

Max Brantley — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:55:00 -0500

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Ross made encouraging sounds about looking out for women's medical services and the ability to choose abortion when he announced last week. But his past record has included votes to restrict abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood, which recently survived a legislative attack on funding for its sex education work in Little Rock.

Republicans, who LIKED Ross' past record, have been hooting about Ross' pitch to women. Bill Halter, his Democratic opponent, has been beating up Ross as the next Jason Rapert. Ross himself has explicitly said 1) he'd have vetoed the abortion restriction bills Gov. Mike Beebe vetoed and 2) he would NOT support defunding of Planned Parenthood's non-abortion services in Arkansas.

An issue for the long-term? Republicans arguing that Mike Ross isn't as liberal as he wants to you believe? Maybe not. But the Democratic primary is something else. So this internal e-mail to Planned Parenthood supporters from Brenda Kole, director of advocacy for the local affiliate, is of interest:

PPVA Board Members,

I'm sure that you have been aware/following the coverage of Mike Ross's announcement tour over the last few days. He has been making statements about women's health and access that do not seem to reconcile with his record in Congress and in all of his statements, he really hasn't offered an explanation for this change of direction. Also, since yesterday, Bill Halter has gone on the attack on Ross's voting record as well. (both attached)

Based on these statements and actions, we believe that it is important for Planned Parenthood Voters of Arkansas to pose questions to Ross. He has clearly opened up the door to a conversation about it. We do not intend to do this in an attacking way, merely a way to gather more information in order to understand his evolution on these matters.

Overall - we want to give him an opportunity to explain himself and his votes. Also, if he has TRULY made an evolution on this, Jill would like us to have a goal of getting Ross to publicly denounce all of his bad votes in Congress on women's health, otherwise we have absolutely no reason to believe a word he says.

Also, despite what Ross has said, he HAS voted to defund PP. That was the vote from 4/14/11, otherwise known as the Pence Amendment. (attached)

In one of the comments from his campaign manager, he talks about "private meetings" that Ross has had on these issues and what his statewide approach should be. Ross has not reached out to any of us, has he reached out to any of you or others supportive of PP in Little Rock? Just curious...

ACTION - Our plan is to do a joint statement with Planned Parenthood Voters of Arkansas and Planned Parenthood Action Fund on the matter of Ross, his record and inviting him to engage in a conversation about this—in the tone mentioned above. We will do this next week once the legislature goes into recess. We felt it was best to wait on this until the legislature does this since we know that Rapert, Stubblefield etc. could still cause some shenanigans, so we don't want to rock the boat on defunding until the legislators have left town.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Mike Ross evolves on women's issues; pays price

Max Brantley — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:00 -0500

Mike Ross' entry into the Democratic primary race for governor, with a full-throated cry for women's rights against the Republican legislature, naturally invited an examination of his voting record. It's not so hot on abortion rights. Evolution on issues is good, of course, but as Democratic candidate Bill Halter's campaign says, it might give a voter pause on trusting which position should be believed. See jump for Halter's statement.

Republicans have been piling on this point, too. They REALLY want to damage Ross now because their polls and other polls show Ross as the stronger Democratic candidate in the fall.

It is something of an ironic spectacle to have Halter claiming he is WAY more liberal on abortion than Mike Ross on the heels of a legislative session in which some of the country's most punitive abortion laws were passed with bipartisan votes and speedy overrides of Gov. Mike Beebe's veto. I tend to believe Arkansas is somewhat more in the middle than those votes reflect. But I'm not sure even Democratic primary voters are as far left on this issue as the Halter campaign's vigorous pro-abortion-rights thrust might have you believe.

We'll see in time. I'll update if Ross responds to my query.

UPDATE: Statement from the campaign:

Mike Ross is pro-life, but, like Governor Beebe, believes abortion should be safe, legal and rare. And, as governor, he would have done just what Gov. Beebe did and he would vetoed both abortion bills. In his announcement, Mike Ross said that instead of focusing on these divisive issues, we should come together as a state and focus on education, economic development and job creation - issues Mike Ross will campaign on and issues Mike Ross will lead on as our next governor.

BILL HALTER NEWS RELEASE

MIKE ROSS CAUGHT MISLEADING ARKANSANS

· ROSS SAID HE WOULD HAVE VETOED 20-WEEK ABORTION BAN — BUT ROSS VOTED IN FAVOR OF STRICTER 20 WEEK ABORTION BAN - ROSS DENIES FACTUAL RECORD

· ROSS SPOKE AGAINST “ATTACKS ON WOMEN” — RECORD SHOWS HE
CO-SPONSORED BILL WITH TODD AKIN TO REDEFINE RAPE AND VOTED TWICE TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Yesterday Mike Ross criticized “misguided politicians” for their “divisive” policies and said that their “attacks on women and family will not work" and "don't belong in Arkansas.”
[Source: ArkansasOnline.com 4/17/2013]

Women will be outraged to learn that Mike Ross now claims to be their champion when his own record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

The fact is Mike Ross co-sponsored with Todd Akin highly divisive legislation that sought to redefine rape and would have prevented women from obtaining important medical care.
[Source: HR 3 — 1/20/11]
Mike Ross spoke out against right-wing policies being promoted in the Arkansas legislature, such as defunding Planned Parenthood, and said they had no place in Arkansas. But Mike Ross’s own record includes these same votes in Washington.

The fact is Mike Ross voted twice to defund Planned Parenthood.
[Source H Amdt 95 to HR 1 - 2/18/11] — [H CON RES 36 4/14/2011]

Mike Ross claims that he would have vetoed the abortion bills that Governor Beebe recently vetoed. But Mike Ross’s own record indicates that his claim cannot be trusted to be truthful.

This morning, Talk Business' Jason Tolbert reported that:

“Ross was asked by Alice Stewart on her radio show about his vote in Congress for an identical bill as passed by the legislature.

“No, that’s not true,” said Ross denying the claim and instead insisting that this was an attack from the extreme right and extreme left.”
[Source: TalkBusiness.net — 4/18/2013]

The fact is Mike Ross voted for a measure that would have banned abortions in Washington, DC after 20 weeks of pregnancy. It was even stricter than the Arkansas bill, denying women who were raped or were victims of incest.
[Source HR 3803 — Roll Call 539 7/31/12]

After announcing that he would not run for reelection to Congress and less than two months after saying he was not going to run governor Mike Ross showed his true colors and voted for this ban. Only now that he is running for governor, has he chosen to flip-flop to suit his own political ambition.

Mike Ross’s statements are not consistent with his own previous actions.

Mike Ross talks about believing in Arkansas values but yesterday he demonstrated a determined willingness to ignore those values when it served his own political ambition.

With Bill Halter, Arkansans know where he stands. He would have vetoed the abortion bills and he never would have supported the attacks on women that Mike Ross promoted by cosponsoring and voting for legislation that would have restricted women from receiving important medical care.

Mike Ross’s record of denying women access to medical care is only one of many aspects of an overall record that Arkansans will find troubling. I am confident that the Arkansas press corps will do their homework and hold Mr. Ross accountable for his own record, rather than allow him to run on someone else’s record.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Suit filed to challenge 12-week abortion ban

Max Brantley — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:42:25 -0500

The Arkansas affiliate of the ACLU, as promised, is suing to challenge Arkansas' new legal ban on most abortions beginning at the 12th week of pregnancy. It will discuss the lawsuit at a 1 p.m. news conference today at the Capitol. Here's the text of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs are Drs. Louis Jerry Edwards and Tom Tvedten, on behalf of themselves and their patients; defendants are the members of the State Medical Board, which the new Act names as the enforcers of the ban.

Others are considering filing a lawsuit also against the bill that invokes a 20-week abortion ban. Both bans fall well short of the fetus viability standard that has long guided federal courts.

A news release follows about the lawsuit.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, and ACLU of Arkansas filed a legal challenge today against Arkansas’s unconstitutional ban on abortions beginning at 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Today’s lawsuit, Edwards v. Beck, (PDF attached) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of two physicians who provide abortion services at a Little Rock clinic, and argues that the Arkansas law violates the U.S. Constitution by banning pre-viability abortions.

SB134 was enacted in March—just two days after Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe vetoed the measure—when both houses in the state legislature voted to override his veto. Today’s legal challenge seeks to block the law before it takes effect on July 18, 2013.

Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:

“We are filing suit today to protect the fundamental right of every woman in Arkansas to make her own decisions about her health, her pregnancy, her family, and her future, free from interference by politicians who seek to strip that right away.

“The promise of the U.S. Constitution is that the rights it encompasses are guaranteed equally to all Americans, regardless of where they live or who sits in power at their statehouses and legislatures.

“Politicians hostile to women’s constitutional rights in Arkansas have cast that promise aside. They have consigned the women of their state to a second class of citizens whose rights are lesser than those who live in states that protect reproductive freedom.

For the past 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that states cannot ban abortion before viability. Acknowledging the wide divergence of views on the issue, the Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that, “by adopting one theory of life, [a state] may [not] override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.” Instead, prior to viability, every woman has the right to make decisions about pregnancy based on her own personal beliefs.

“No politician has the authority to vote the fundamental rights of his or her fellow citizens away,” said Stephanie Toti, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We fully expect the court to immediately strike down this legislative assault on the U.S. Constitution and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent.”

The Arkansas law banning abortion at 12 weeks is one of the most extreme in the nation, only surpassed by the recently-enacted North Dakota measure banning the procedure as early as six-weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. The Center for Reproductive Rights has committed to also challenging the North Dakota law on behalf the state's only abortion clinic before it is scheduled to take effect this summer.

NEWS RELEASE FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland applauds the challenge filed in Federal District Court today, against the state’s unconstitutional abortion ban. The 12-week abortion ban is one of the most extreme anti-woman’s health bills in the country.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights are challenging the law on behalf of two doctors who perform abortion at a health center in Little Rock.

Statement from Jill June, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland

“This restrictive ban on safe and legal abortion puts the health and safety of Arkansas women and their families at risk. A woman may need an abortion for many different reasons, and she should be trusted to make her own personal private medical decisions.

“We applaud the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights for standing up for the health and rights of all Arkansas women by challenging this unconstitutional ban. We are proud to stand with them in support.

“Politics should never be inserted into a woman’s personal medical decisions. This law goes too far, and could have devastating consequences on Arkansas women. "

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Blanche Lincoln speaks out for rights of Arkansas women

Max Brantley — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:39:00 -0500

It's a measure of how cynical people had become about former U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln that an opinion piece she's posted on Huffington Post has people wondering what her ulterior motive might be.

Lincoln, now a high-dollar member of the Washington lobbying/consultant community like many other former members of Congress, writes about the assault on women's medical autonomy by the Arkansas legislature and the effort to destroy Planned Parenthood's health services for women and others. She's nothing but right. She had a sound record on choice issues as a legislator. I'm willing to take it at face value. But that's me.

Identified as a spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, one of the worst lobbies in Washington when it comes to progressive government, Lincoln nonetheless wrote, in part:

... Arkansans — like the majority of Americans — understand and respect a woman's constitutional right to make deeply personal and often complex health care decisions without the interference of politicians and in an environment that feels most comfortable to her.

By now, you've seen the headlines. The new Republican-controlled Arkansas State Senate have focused like a laser — not on creating jobs or expanding opportunity — but on banning abortion and defunding Planned Parenthood.

Their playbook is really quite simple: First, pass the nation's most extreme early abortion ban over the veto of the governor and with guaranteed litigation costs to the State with the ACLU of Arkansas saying they'll challenge the unconstitutional law in federal court. Second, the day after it passes, introduce an extreme bill designed to defund Planned Parenthood on the backs of Arkansas women who rely on the nonprofit for a wide-range of affordable preventive health care.

What's clear — this is not what Arkansans want and certainly not what they need.

... The extreme Arkansas abortion ban is in clear violation of a woman's constitutional right to safe and legal abortion and, if enforced, would outlaw the procedure before a woman may have important information about her health or the health of her pregnancy. Further, the Arkansas defunding bill is so extreme it would restrict all funds passing through the State from Planned Parenthood's nonprofit health centers in Arkansas. These centers are serving a critical role in our State's health care system and provide an array of services to the working poor that would otherwise be ignored. Withholding funding from Planned Parenthood could have a detrimental effect on their services and education programs, which in turn would have an enormously detrimental impact on the health of our State.

One in five of America's women have turned to Planned Parenthood at some point in her life — not to make political statements but to get high quality, affordable health care. Without the care that Planned Parenthood health centers provide — Pap tests, well-woman exams, STD testing and treatment, and breast exams — the health of our mothers, daughters, sisters and wives will suffer.

Most immediately, the bill would end an important teen health education prevention program in Little Rock at a time when Arkansas's teen birth rate ranks third in the nation because less than three percent of Planned Parenthood's health services in Arkansas happen to be abortion related. But the bill goes further by blocking State funding from any health care provider or organization that merely provides information to a woman about abortion services. Think about it: A rape crisis center could lose funding if, tragically, a woman became pregnant after an assault and sought counsel about where to go for a safe and legal medical procedure.

This is not just bad policy, this is also bad politics. While the National Republican Party leadership has been doing a lot of talking these days about fine-tuning their tactics in order to win votes in 2014, Republican leadership in Arkansas is taking the exact opposite course and proving to be more extreme than any other State in the country. Arkansas deserves better than this divisive agenda that will only lead to costly, lengthy litigation and diminished health care for our women and families.

Amen.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

The midweek line — war on women continues

Max Brantley — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:03:06 -0500

The line is open. Finishing up (after aerial footage above of the Mayflower oil spill, hard to get now because of an FAA no-fly rule on the area).

* THERE WILL BE BLOODY NUKES: There's the oil spill. And then there's the giant industrial accident at Arkansas Nuclear One, for which many assurances have been given against serious harm (beyond the one person killed, of course). This post on Daily Kos begs to differ. By the way, The River Valley Leader has photos of the mess inside the Arkansas Nuclear One .

* OK. IT REALLY COULD BE WORSE: Now that the bill filing deadline is past in Arkansas, it's safe to report North Carolina is ahead of the wackjob curve with Republican majority leader-supported legislation that would allow establishment of a state religion and otherwise declare the U.S. Bill of Rights null and void in North Carolina. It's somewhat akin to Bullet Bob Ballinger's federal gun law nullification in Arkansas. North Carolina has that, too.

* A VOTE FOR THE ARTS: And let's mention a small piece of good news from the legislature. The House this afternoon passed, over some objections, a bill to establish an arts-infused curriculum in public schools. Several representatives testified to the benefits of arts education in lifting students in other areas. The bill goes to the Senate. Our Leslie Newell Peacock has been tracking this effort — and the value of the arts generally — on her arts blog, Eye Candy, and in the regular pages of the Times.

* THE LITTLE ROCK CITY GOVERNMENT DIVIDE: Interesting bit of film from Arkansas Community Organizations. City Director Erma Hendrix moved that the Little Rock City Board not always place citizen communications at the end of (frequently long) board meetings, but alternate placement of the comment period. Director Ken Richardson noted that citizen communications already labor under an arbitrary three-minute time limit, where agenda items can stretch on without limit. Mayor Stodola favored his policy of giving agenda first priority at every meeting. The motion was defeated. The vote: Directors from south of Interstate 630 voted for the motion, except Joan Adcock, who voted present, same effect as a no. It was opposed by directors from north of Interstate 630.

* OBAMACARE WATCH: Pennsylvania is giving a look at the Arkansas method of expanding Medicaid coverage under Obamacare through private insurance. A South Carolina official, Tony Keck, on the other hand, says it still smells like Obamacare to him.

“If Republicans are for this plan, I don’t know what exactly they were against before,” says Keck, who runs South Carolina’s Medicaid program. “It covers the same number of people, with the same benefits and is more expensive. I have a hard time understanding what it is that some of these Republican legislators like about that.”

Perhaps Speaker Davy Carter, who says flatly that expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare is not Obamacare, can explain to Mr. Keck.

* AND SPEAKING OF LOOKING AFTER THE LEAST AMONG US: In the Times this week, a guest column by four clergy/activists makes the case for a fairer approach to tax revision than giveaways to the wealthy.

It comes down to a moral case, the writers argue. (Persuasively, to me.) Write Steve Copley, Pat Bodenhamer, Wendell Griffen and Howard Gordon:

As people of faith, we are called to seek justice for "the least of these" and care for what affects the quality of their daily lives. This faith places requirements upon the followers.

Today, six out of every 10 families in Arkansas (60 percent of our population) earn less than $44,000 a year. They pay roughly 12 cents of every dollar they earn in taxes. But Arkansans who earn more than $300,000 (1 percent of our population) pay only 6 cents of every dollar in taxes.

A system that taxes middle and low income earners TWICE what the highest earners pay is not moral and just.

Yet several proposals being considered by Arkansas legislators would make the existing unfair system even WORSE. HB 1966 cuts taxes on investment profits, vastly benefiting the wealthiest Arkansans. HB 1585 lowers the Arkansas income tax in a manner that would give the top 5 percent of wage earners half the tax reduction. Both bills passed the House Revenue and Tax Committee last week and now move to the House floor. How can these legislative proposals be considered moral and just?

* THE WAR ON WOMEN CONTINUES: The war on women continues. A Senate committee will take up anti-abortion cookiecutter legislation being introduced around the country to cut off the flow of public money to Planned Parenthood. No money goes to Planned Parenthood in Arkansas for abortion. The state Health Department passes along $60,000 in federal money to pay for HIV and sexual disease education. But because Planned Parenthood provides abortion — not clinical ones in Arkansas — and otherwise supports a woman's right to choose abortion, it has been targeted for loss of unrelated money. This battle by anti-choice forces is underway in several states, along with lawsuits challenging the punitive measures that inevitably leave some women with untreated disease, without birth control and with unwanted pregnancies that sometimes end in abortions. ~~Planned Parenthood has put out a call for support at the State Agencies meeting at 10 a.m. Thursday in the Old Supreme Court room. Wear pink and arrive early, the note says.~~

UPDATE: Planned Parenthood was confused. The bill came for afternoon consideration TODAY in the State Agencies Committee after adjournment of the Senate. Jerry Cox, the anti-choice leader of the rightwing religio-political lobby Family Council explained the bill in place of Sen. Gary Stubblefield, who's just a stooge on the issue. Stubblefield, a spectator said, didn't know Planned Parenthood did STD screening.

UPDATE II: The committee, with a solid majority Republican membership, recommended the bill for passage, says an opponent who was in the room. Last hope likely will be the House committee, which has a slightly more favorable makeup, a Democratic majority if not a pro-choice majority. You'd hope they could muster a pro-health majority on this bill, since the money isn't used for abortion, but that's asking a lot in this legislature. Stubblefield, just to give you a flavor, asked a lot of questions about lubricants and flavored condoms and encouraging homosexuality. (Sex is not supposed to be enjoyable, the anti-choice forces believe. If you do it out of matrimony you should either get pregnant or die from AIDS and have no pleasure in the process.) He said other groups that don't countenance abortions should be able to compete for the money. (Presumably so long as they don't also "encourage homosexuality" by passing out condoms to gay people.) A report I received said the bill was amended so as not to affect Medicaid funding, so the impact may be less than originally thought.

ON THE JUMP: A statement from Planned Parenthood which notes the crazily broad language of the bill which would bar public funds to anybody who barely associates with someone or something that is pro-choice.

NEWS RELEASE

In a surprise move today, an Arkansas Senate committee voted to pass a broad measure designed to end funding that goes through the state to support organizations like Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Arkansas women are in desperate need of the services Planned Parenthood provides.

“The Arkansas Legislature is once again putting politics ahead of the health and well being of Arkansans,” said Planned Parenthood of the Heartland President and CEO Jill June. “Planned Parenthood is being singled out for political reasons, and the health of families in our state is being jeopardized along the way.”

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland receives two grants for HIV and Syphilis prevention programs and outreach. The programs provide medically accurate, age-appropriate information, including information about abstinence, to 2,000 women, men and teens. The grant funding is used solely for these important preventive education programs.

While proponents claim to take square aim at these sex education programs provided by Planned Parenthood, the poorly drafted language in the bill could have much broader, unforeseen consequences. The bill blocks funding that passes through the state for any private health care provider or organization that provides information about all of a woman’s pregnancy options. If an individual doctor refers a patient for an abortion, that doctor could lose a research grant that passes through the state. Domestic violence shelters or rape crisis centers that provide referrals for abortion could also be in danger of losing funding.

This bill is much broader than other state efforts to restrict women’s health funding. Anyone who contracts with Planned Parenthood, as well as any entity that contracts with an entity that refers for abortion, could lose funding. No state law has been enacted that would punish an entity that has nothing to do with abortion or even health care, just because they do business with an entity that provides or refers for abortion.

“It’s time to put politics aside and put the women and families of Arkansas first. Extreme lawmakers would rather make a political statement than allow Planned Parenthood to continue teaching young people how to stay safe and healthy,” concluded June.

One in four Arkansas women of reproductive age is uninsured. More than 300,000 women are in need of contraceptive services and supplies. Sixty percent of counties have no OB-GYNs, and the state has the highest cervical cancer mortality rate in the nation.

Planned Parenthood has been a trusted health care provider and educator in Arkansas for more than 40 years.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Standing firm for abortion rights in North Dakota

Max Brantley — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:03:00 -0500

Good interview by the Washington Post with the director of North Dakota's only abortion provider, a a clinic that the legislature there has been trying by man means — several similar to efforts underway in Arkansas — to legislate out of existence. She's standing firm.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

North Dakota takes the lead in the war on women

Max Brantley — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:57:00 -0500

A sad day for Jason Rapert, who's luxuriating in attention over his leadership of the war on women's medical rights. The North Dakota governor today signed legislation putting an even earlier and more comprehensive limit on abortion — as soon as a fetal hearbeat can be detected, around six weeks. North Dakota has also banned abortions performed on account of genetic defects, among other anti-abortion measures.

This should put North Dakota rather than Arkansas more at the center of the debate, but I'm betting Rapert will still manage to reap plenty of public exposure. The North Dakota bill is essentially the same thing he originally proposed here, but watered down to a ban on abortions after 12 weeks when some got uneasy over the fact that vaginal probes would be necessary to detect fetal heartbeats at the earliest stages of pregnancy.

Of course, there are always other avenues for publicity. Arkansas is pushing personhood down to the zygote stage in several areas of the law; it could always try to outlaw the in vitro fertilization program at UAMS as contrary to personhood, given, as the anti-choice movement likes to put it, the murders of babies that sometimes occur in the process. Or, life doesn't just begin at conception. It begins with the sperm and the egg. Maybe there's something in the masturbation restriction realm that the Fiddlin' senator could work up.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Protest tomorrow on legislature's assault on women's rights

Max Brantley — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:38:00 -0500

A reminder of the social media-driven rally at the Capitol at 3 p.m. Saturday over the legislature's unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on women's medical rights.

Some 1,400 women have indicated a willingness to participate. All it takes is showing up. A news release follows on planned speakers and the background of the organizing.

State Senator Joyce Elliott, long a champion of women and children in Arkansas, will be the featured speaker at Saturday’s grassroots Protest at the Arkansas Capitol grounds.

Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas for the past 20 years, will also be there to share her insights with protesters standing against what they see as capricious overreach, on the part of the State Legislature’s ultra-conservative majority.

Greer Williams and Rain Calibotta, spoken word artists and cultural activists, use powerful poetic images to examine the deeper roots of presumptions about women and our culture.

Jaime Goswick, wife, mother of two, and humanist minister, will talk about what prompted her to do what sparked the protest this coming weekend. She invited her friends via Facebook, to join her in a protest at the State Capitol, and to pass the invitation on to their friends.

More than 1,400 people have indicated on the group’s Facebook page that they will attend, at 3 p.m. on the eastern steps of the Capitol. The event has been coordinated by a core group of 25 to 30 volunteers who have used social media both to plan and to publicize the event.

“In less than one week from the time we announced this — just on Facebook and Twitter — we already had more than a thousand people signed up to go, to buy ads, to make signs, to bring carpools from all over the state,” said Nancy Colburn, one of the event organizers.

Ms. Goswick and the other organizers say the most important speakers on Saturday will be the crowd. The largest share of time will be reserved for an “open mic” for those who want to express their own feelings about this legislature in their own words.

The theme of the rally is “Stop The War On Women,” and the posters show images of an angry Rosie the Riveter. “That choice is purposeful,” said Allyn Dodd, who designed the posters. “We are all angry — angry that we have been degraded and disregarded by our legislators during this whole process. We are reminding the entire state that when women flocked into the industrial workforce in 1942, we are the ones who kept this nation going. We deserve consideration from our government, and we are demanding it.”

Information on car pools, as well as graphics which can be downloaded and printed for signs, are available at the group’s facebook page, Protest at the Arkansas Capitol or http://tinyurl.com/ARWARONWOMEN Signs are encouraged, but attendees are reminded that the signs may not be on sticks, according to State Capitol grounds regulations.

Organizers say the group is committed to nonviolence, and though the attendees are there to express their outrage, they are there to show their resolve as well. “Saturday is not just to be a flash in the pan, but rather the beginning of showing up in all our numbers, to guard our civil liberties,” the group’s Claudia Reynolds-LeBlanc said. “We are law-abiding people, and we intend to hold our legislators to that same standard. Right now our legislature is passing unconstitutional bills one after the other, with blatant disdain for the rights not only of women, but of all the people of Arkansas.”

Nancy Colburn added, “We will be loud and we will speak our minds, and we will be noticed, but we will be respectful of the law, peace, and human dignity.”

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

And now, birth control, in vitro restrictions, from David Meeks

Leslie Newell Peacock — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:31:00 -0500

Arkansas women, accustomed now to being slapped around by the Arkansas legislature, which has embarrassed the state nationally with its anti-woman bills, are greeting with deep sighs state Rep. David Meeks' new bill, HB1898, the "Healthcare Freedom of Conscience Act," that would allow doctors and hospitals not to provide the following treatments if they ran counter to their "moral" principles: Artificial birth control; artificial insemination; assisted reproduction (read in-vitro), human embryonic stem-cell research and sterilization.

This bill assumes that there are hospitals or ethical systems that force doctors and nurses to practice medicine they don't want to practice. That there are doctors helping childless women become pregnant only because the doctor police are making them. That Arkansas hospitals require their nurses to sign a pledge that they'll assist in sterilization procedures. That it can protect Catholic institutions from having to provide their employees insurance coverage for birth control.

Or perhaps it assumes this: That there are doctors, or non-Catholic hospitals run by people who think like Meeks, who want to stop, wholesale, offering those services and need his helping hand to do that. Or perhaps it assumes this: That UAMS is so eager to affiliate with St. Vincent that it's willing to stop offering those things that Catholic institutions don't offer anyway and hope this legislation will allow it. That's nonsense.

How would this bill affect UAMS? Not at all, says Dr. Nicholas Lang: UAMS allows employees on the front end to indicate what procedures they will not participate in. They can't wait until the middle of a procedure, Lang said, but they can opt out at hiring. I've got a call in to Baptist Health for comment.

Nor does the bill apparently affect pharmacists, who are not required by the state pharmacy board to fill birth control prescriptions; they may exercise their preference.

So here's what the bill, provided to Meeks by the national Americans United for Life anti-abortion group, really accomplishes: It lets Meeks not get out-woman-hated by his fellows in our esteemed General Assembly. If Rapert and Mayberry et al are going to front legislation to remove a woman's right to choose and give embryos all the powers that people have, well, by golly, he's going to get in on the hate-fest. He's only co-sponsor of the abortion bills. He's leading the charge on this meaningless legislation.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Idaho's 20-week abortion ban struck down

Leslie Newell Peacock — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:59:00 -0600

Idaho's law that, like Arkansas's new law introduced by Rep. Andy Mayberry, R-Right Hand of God, bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, has been struck down in federal court.

Sen. Jason Rapert's bill, now law, that prohibits abortion at 14 12 weeks, is certain to be struck down in federal court (as even Rapert must know). Though in a different court, Winmill's action gives Arkansas women — especially those who learn after 20 weeks that their fetus has fatal defects — hope that Arkansas's 20-week ban will also fail in court and they will once again have the right to end a tragic pregnancy.

The Idaho law was also based on the belief of some doctors and politicians that the fetus begins to feel pain at 20 weeks. But U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said the law unduly burdened women exercising their legal right to abortion prior to viability: “The state may not rely on its interest in the potential life of the fetus to place a substantial obstacle to abortion before viability in women’s paths.”

The judge also struck down two other abortion bills produced by the Idaho legislature. From the Washington Post:

One is Idaho’s requirement that first-trimester abortions be performed by a physician in a staffed office or clinic, a law that makes most drug-induced abortions, such as RU-486, illegal. The ruling also targets a law requiring that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital and a statute that criminalizes the woman in some cases for undergoing the procedure.

“Historically, abortion statutes sought to protect pregnant females from third parties providing dangerous abortions,” Winmill wrote. “As a result, most states’ abortion laws traditionally criminalized the behavior of third parties to protect the health of pregnant women — they did not punish women for obtaining an abortion. By punishing women, Idaho’s abortion statute is therefore unusual.”

The plaintiff, who had three children and was living in poverty, had been charged in a criminal action after she aborted, with help from online abortifacients, a fetus determined to be between 20 and 24 weeks gestational age. A judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence, but prosecutors could have refiled it.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

New state logo

Leslie Newell Peacock — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:27:03 -0600

Numerous people have e-mailed asking us to post the new state logo that has been posted on the Internet. I don't know who created it. But it's right on target.

It sends a message to the world beyond our borders: We're so darn natural, that we don't let women make a choice to halt the natural course of pregnancy, because fetal rights outweigh women's rights in this state. So if you prize your right to control your reproductive life, and believe a woman's rights should not be subordinated to a fetus, then you should stay the hell out of Arkansas.

Thought: What progressive company owned by or employing women would move to Arkansas?

Meanwhile: The Washington Post says new law would make 1 in 10 abortions in Arkansas illegal.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Planned Parenthood praises governor

Leslie Newell Peacock — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:37:44 -0600

The regional Planned Parenthood office that includes Arkansas, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, has issued praise for Gov. Beebe for his decision yesterday to veto the 20-week abortion ban approved by the legislature, saying, "We thank him for his leadership and supporting women’s health care in the face of such harsh attacks from the Arkansas Legislature."

News release on the jump.

Planned Parenthood Applauds Governor Beebe for Standing up for Arkansas Women

Little Rock, AR — Planned Parenthood of the Heartland applauds Governor Mike Beebe’s decision to veto the unconstitutional 20 week abortion ban. His unwavering leadership is an example for the rest of the Arkansas Legislature. We encourage legislators to do what’s right for Arkansas families, and stand with Governor Beebe’s veto.
Statement from Planned Parenthood of the Heartland President and CEO Jill June.

“Today the Governor stood up for women and families across Arkansas. We thank him for his leadership and supporting women’s health care in the face of such harsh attacks from the Arkansas Legislature.

“This veto sends a message to the Arkansas Legislature that lawmakers need to quit focusing on unconstitutional abortion bans that are dangerous for Arkansas women. Lawmakers need to stay out of a woman’s personal medical decisions and focus on the issues they promised — creating jobs, fixing the economy, and uniting our state.

“This is a victory for Arkansas women and their families. We strongly encourage all legislators to stand with their Governor in doing what is right for the state of Arkansas."

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Gov. Beebe likely to veto Sen. Rapert's abortion bill

David Ramsey — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:22:00 -0600

Gov. Mike Beebe told reporters today that Sen. Jason Rapert's bill banning abortion after 12 weeks was "even more problematic" than Rep. Andy Mayberry's bill, which Beebe announced today that he would veto.

Beebe said he would wait for Rapert's bill to reach his desk but added that it would "be kind of naive not to acknowledge [that] I'm pretty sure I know what I'm going to do on a bill that's even more problematic than the one I already vetoed. But I won't tell you officially until that time."

As for the veto of Rep. Andy Mayberry's bill banning abortions after 20 weeks, Beebe reiterated that he believed the law was unconstitutional and hoped that his statement released today would "send the right message" to members, who can override the veto with a simple majority.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Fetuses, fetuses and more fetuses: Anti-abortion bills win Arkansas legislative approval

Max Brantley — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:44:19 -0600

The House calendar this afternoon is loaded with the Stepford Republican Caucus' grand obsession:

* 20TH-WEEK ABORTION BAN: Rep. Andy Mayberry's bill to ban several dozen late-term abortions in Arkansas every year by making them illegal after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with no consideration for a mother's health or the grave fetal problems that prompt these abortions. The bill is based on the disputed theory of fetal pain and using the work of a doctor who says his work has nothing to do with abortion. Not that facts matter. UPDATE: The action today gave House concurrence to a Senate amendment to allow rape and incest exceptions. They were added 80-10, which completes action on the bill. Gov. Mike Beebe has indicated constitutional objections, but hasn't said if he'll sign it or not.

* CASTLE DOCTRINE FOR PREGNANT WOMEN:
Sen. Gary Stubblefield's bill allows a woman to kill someone she believes is threatening the well-being of her fetus. No retreat is necessary. She may shoot on perception of what she "reasonably believes" is a threat sufficient for use of force. REMINDER: Sen. Jim Hendren has a bill coming to push definition of unborn child up to the zygote stage, opening the door for fetus-defense shootings within hours after sex. Be warned. CORRECTION: Stubblefield's bill already had the zygote covered. Hendren's bill, in addition to changing the definition of child for the criminal code, also opens the door to wrongful death lawsuits from the moment an egg is fertilized. Women already had a right of self-defense. Bill described as effort to close gap in law, apparently based on an isolated case in Michigan. UPDATE: It passed 93-0.

* 12TH WEEK ABORTION BAN: Jason Rapert goes Andy Mayberry eight weeks better with a bill that prohibits abortion if a hearbeat can be detected. Rape, incest and fetal abnormalities are excepted, among other amendments. The bill is more clearly unconstitutional than Mayberry's, a version of which has won approval from one lower court. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings in multiple cases still say that states may not prohibit a woman's right to choose an abortion before the ability of a fetus to live outside the womb, generally around 24 weeks. Rep. Ann Clemmer, who once claimed to be a Rockefeller Republican, described this bill, unbelievably, as middle ground and a compromise. It would be the most far-reaching limitation on abortion rights in the country with the 12-week cutoff, except for what she called "extreme" circumstances. She called it also a way to "rein in elective, late-term abortions." There's no way to describe this but a bald-faced lie because it would ban hundreds of early term abortions.

Rep. John Edwards spoke against the bill, beginning by saying, "I support the Constitution." The rule of law is important, he said. Courts have ruled on the subject more than once, he said. He said he had decided "to trust women on this issue and place my faith in the Constitution."

Rep. Kim Hammer said there's a higher court than the Supreme Court and "it is ruled by God." He said the bill protected women who are victims. "I ask you to protect that baby ... from becoming a victim."

Rep. Homer Lenderman, who voted for the Mayberry bill, said Arkansas Right to Life does not support the bill and he doesn't either, because it's unconstitutional and would cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in legal fees. Rep. Bob Ballinger said Right to Life also did not oppose the bill and he said he and others would take defense of the case "pro bono." He used the favorite anti-abortion argument that slavery was once allowed as was segregation. He said people who are "pro-life" have "no choice" but to challenge the law.

Rep. Patti Julian said the bill takes choices away from women. She related how a "pro-life" obstetrician had asked her why the legislature was spending time and money to litigate decided issues.

UPDATE: Bill passed 68-20, with two present. It goes to the governor after the Senate concurs in House amendments. He has said repeatedly that it's unconstitutional. He's unlikely to sign it. But, given the vote, will he veto it?

Here's the roll call. The nays:

C. Armstrong E. Armstrong J. Dickinson J. Edwards Ferguson Fielding
Hodges Julian Leding Love McElroy McGill
Murdock Nickels Perry Sabin D. Whitaker Williams
Word Wright

ON THE JUMP: Comment from the Center for Reproductive Rights:

Today the Arkansas House of Representatives approved an amended version of SB 134, a measure banning all abortions at 12 weeks of pregnancy with only narrow exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and to save the woman’s life.

The bill, which would be the earliest and most extreme abortion ban in the country, is now expected to head to Governor Mike Beebe’s desk if the Senate approves the House’s version of the bill.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, called on the State Senate and Governor Beebe to reject the bill:

“Let’s call this bill what it is: bumper-sticker message legislation with no chance of standing up in court, designed to dial the clock back 40 years on women’s rights.

“This extreme ban will either force women already facing tough economic circumstances to travel to a neighboring state to access constitutionally-protected health care or to turn to dangerous, clandestine options that could ruin or even end their lives.

“We strongly urge Governor Beebe to veto this archaic bill and send a strong statement to the anti-choice politicians in the Arkansas Legislature that this law is a gross violation of women’s constitutional rights.”

The Arkansas House also voted to send HB 1037 to Governor Beebe’s desk, another extreme anti-abortion bill banning abortions at 20 weeks post-fertilization. The Center for Reproductive Rights plans to send letters urging the governor to veto both bills.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held—first in Roe v. Wade and again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey—that states cannot ban abortion prior to viability.

Last year, lawmakers in Ohio failed to pass early bans on abortion based on the detection of fetal heart tones—which can be as early as five or six weeks—after raising concerns about the likely legal battle over the law’s constitutionality. Although similar measures have been introduced already this year in North Dakota and Mississippi, no state has ever passed such a bill.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Rapert abortion bill comes out of committee amid vote dispute UPDATE

Max Brantley — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:44:49 -0600

David Goins of Fox 16 reports that Sen. Jason Rapert's unconstitutional bill to ban most abortions at the 12th week of pregnancy was approved in the House Public Health Committee today on a voice vote. He reports that Chairman John Burris refused a motion for a roll call vote on the bill. ????

If this account is accurate, why vote at all? Just let Burris designate which bills will become law and which will not.

UPDATE I: Goins elaborates that Burris ruled he had recognized another legislator to present a new bill before the motion for a roll call was uttered. Burris moved mighty quickly.

UPDATE II: Two wrongs make a right. An eyewitness said that on one occasion during interminable efforts to pass anti-abortion bills in 2011, Public Health Chair Linda Tyler (defeated by Rapert for Senate last year) gaveled a meeting to adjournment immediately after ruling a voice vote had failed to pass one abortion bill (the particular one I can't pin down). She exited the room as anti-abortion legislators tried to call for a roll call.

UPDATE III: Big day for fetuses. The committee also, as expected, endorsed Rep. Andy Mayberry's bill to ban most abortions at the 20th week of pregnancy. It was amended to include a rape and incest exception. It provides no exceptions for fetal anomalies, the primary reason for the 46 abortions performed at this stage in 2011 nor protection for the health of the mother, only to save her life.

UPDATE IV: AP reports that House Speaker Davy Carter will send the unconstitutional Rapert bill back to committee because of complaints over Burris' refusal to have a roll call. I suspect is has the requisite votes if enough members attend, though that is sometimes a challenging if.

UPDATE V: KARK reports the governor has made up his mind on the abortion bills, but says he'll let the legislature vote without influence from him. He's a lawyer. He knows that the U.S. Supreme Court has, to date, ruled repeatedly and clearly that both the Rapert and Mayberry bills are unconstitutional because they prohibit abortions before viability of the fetus.

UPDATE VI: The Public Health Committee will meet after adjournment today and take another bite at Rapert's unconstitutional apple. Roll call or not, ultimately approved or not it will remain unconstitutional.

UPDATE VII: The Committee met briefly and quietly. Roll was called. 11 votes, the minimum for passage, were cast for the bill. There were five nays. It moves to the floor. And, if enacted, to court.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

UPDATE: Guns and fetuses — abortion ban approved by Senate committee today

Max Brantley — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:04:09 -0600

The Guns and Fetuses session of the Arkansas legislature continues today. Word is that Rep. Andy Mayberry will amend his abortion ban beginning with the 20th week of pregnancy to allow for abortions in cases of rape and incest.

As written, the bill provided an exception only to save the life of the mother or avoid "irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

Rape and incest exceptions have been the holdup for the bill in Senate committee, which has the bill this morning. There is NO exception still for abortions sought in the case of fetal abornmalities, the primary reason for later term abortions in the first place. Only a small number are performed in Arkansas each year.

The new exceptions don't cure the constitutional problems with the bill. The U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that states may not ban abortions before viability of the fetus — roughly 24 weeks. But a district court has approved a 20-week limit in Arizona, a decision now on appeal.

PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE UPDATE: The Senate committee delayed action today on Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson's bill to require drug testing of people receiving unemployment benefits. This idea — thoroughly repudiated as a useful tool in a Florida rollout — foundered at least temporarily until there can be a study of its cost. Higher than benefits, for sure. Let's drug test legislators while we're at it. And require legislative polygraphs, too, on a range of issues: Have they ever taken illegal drugs; driven while intoxicated; paid for an abortion; cheated on income taxes.

UPDATE II: James Owen reports that the committe endorsed Mayberry's amended bill. Testimony replayed the House events, with Mayberry playing a video of his child, who was born with spina bifida, emotional but irrelevant. Current law does not require ANYONE to have an abortion. But Mayberry's bill would prevent others from exercising choice, including in cases where there's a medical certainty the fetus would not survive outside the womb. If passed by the Senate and allowed to become law by the governor, who's expressed reservations, it will be challenged in court as unconstitutional.

The bill was approved on a voice vote. Only Sen. Linda Chesterfield could be audibly heard to express a "no" vote.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Rapert abortion bill is forever

Max Brantley — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:48:39 -0600

It occurred to me in the middle of the night what the game may be on Sen. Jason Rapert's unconstitutional bill to ban abortions from 12 weeks of a pregnancy on.

I think he knows it's unconstitutional. I think he knows it will be quickly mooted by a lawsuit if it passes. I don't think he cares how much money the state will pay in the process or the offense being done to women's medical rights. Fetuses, even microscopic potential fetuses in the hours after sex, are more important to the anti-abortion crowd than women.

I think this part of the bill is the key:

20-16-1307. Tolling of effective date.
If a state or federal court of competent jurisdiction voids a provision of this subchapter as unconstitutional, the effective date of that provision shall be tolled until that provision has been upheld as valid by an appellate tribunal.

This embodies the same philosophy in the constitutional amendment by which Arkansas prohibited state expenditures on abortion. That amendment also is aimed at making abortion illegal in Arkansas should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned and power to prohibit abortions given to the state. It says life, from conception, must be protected to the extent allowed by the federal constitution. Rapert's bill contains a more specific failsafe, a statutory complement to execute the amendment at least in part come the day a Religionist Republican Supreme Court takes women's rights away.

This type of legislating opens up all kinds of opportunities for the Arkansas legislature. We could pass laws to permit school segregation, should an appellate tribunal ever allow it. We could pass laws permitting discrimination on the basis of gender, age or religion, should a federal court ever see the light. We could legalize debtors' prisons and incarceration without trial, should the namby pambys on the Supreme Court ever see the light. These bills would be as empty legally as Rapert's, but the field is rich with opportunities to score points with the base.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Rapert's abortion ban is unconstitutional

Max Brantley — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:39:08 -0600

Duh. Sen. Jason Rapert's bill to ban abortions from the 12th week of pregnancy onward is unconstitutional under every controlling legal precedent. We've been hollering that for weeks.

Nonetheless, it's useful to have articles such as this from Stephens Media in which a law professor underscores the point.

It's also worth, again, underscoring Rapert's dishonesty. For two years he claimed the original version of this bill wouldn't require invasive transvaginal probes to find a heartbeat. It did. Worse than that is this bodacious Rapert whopper:

Doctors generally consider a fetus to be viable at 23 or 24 weeks. No state currently bans abortions as early as 12 weeks, but Rapert told the House committee that if Arkansas were to adopt such a ban, it would withstand a court challenge.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed states to prohibit abortions before viability,” Rapert told the panel.

He said his bill was “vetted by legal scholars” but did not name them.

[Theresa] Beiner, who teaches constitutional law at UALR, said the court has never issued such a ruling.

“This all comes from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where viability became the touchstone of when you could begin to prohibit abortions,” she said. “That doesn’t mean you can’t regulate abortions before viability, but it’s going to be regulation, it’s not going to be prohibition.”

Regulation and prohibition are two different things. Rapert knows this. He's glorying in the possibility Arkansas will defy the law and that some miracle will upend decades of court guidance. He simply lies. Do it often enough — and if the Stepford Republicans repeat the lie enough — you might convince a lot of people you're telling the truth.

Arkansas legislators took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Those who vote for this bill are knowingly violating that oath, just as the segs of Dixie did in the 1950s and 1960s. Backers of Andy Mayberry's 20-week abortion ban have a tiny shred of cover, in a decision at a district court in Arizona not applicable in Arkansas, where appellate precedent still applies. That one, too, is unconstitutional.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

A doctor speaks out on abortion bills

Leslie Newell Peacock — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:48:00 -0600

Dr. Curtis Lowery, chairman of the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, expanded on his testimony yesterday before the House public health committee on what Sen. Jason Rapert's bill to prevent abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected would mean for women.

Rapert's bill, as well as the bill that Rep. Andy Mayberry will bring before the Senate public health committee next week to ban abortions from the 20th week of pregnancy, make no exclusions for fetal anomalies; it does, however, allow abortion to save the life of the mother. But Lowery asks, who makes the decision whether the abortion is life-saving?

For example: If a woman with a congenital heart problem is told she has a 50-50 chance of surviving delivery and choses to terminate the pregnancy, is that covered under the bill? Or will a court later declare that because she had a 50 percent chance of surviving, the doctor is guilty of a felony? Medical decisions such as these are always based on percentages. Who's to judge which percentage is allowable?

The bill also would require women who present with a rupture of the membrane protecting the fetus, thus causing its lungs to stop developing, from choosing to abort what is medically known as an inevitable miscarriage. The physical danger to the pregnant woman in this situation — not to mention the psychological damage — is that she will develop a uterine infection. Unless she is less than 12 weeks pregnant (under Rapert’s bill) or less than 20 weeks pregnant (under Mayberry’s), her doctor will have to wait until that infection becomes systemic and threatens her life to intervene.

Lowery said UAMS doctors see about 150 obstetrical patients a year who have suffered a premature rupture of the membrane protecting the developing fetus, something that can happen at any time in a pregnancy.

UAMS' genetic counselors and physicians now offer counseling to women on the kinds of anomalies their fetuses have so they can make an informed choice on whether to carry the infant to term. Under these bills, a woman may discover the fetus has abnormalities of the sort described in the letter published here yesterday about why a surgical nurse decided to terminate — “encephalocele” and “holoprosencephaly" — and be required to carry the fetus until it dies in utero or is born. The letter urges readers not to look those terms up because it will break hearts. I'd say some people need to look those terms up to see what these women are faced with.

UAMS offers the largest prenatal diagnosis program in the state. State law prohibits the medical center from performing elective abortions, so its students do not get training in the procedure. Students who want to learn the procedure must be trained elsewhere. Under the new abortion bills, UAMS would be further restricted in its ability to perform what the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as non-elective, legal abortions, and its accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education could be withdrawn. Pregnant women who need a non-elective abortion would have to travel outside Arkansas, which for many poor women would not be an option.

Mayberry’s bill gives a woman until 20 weeks, unlike the 12 weeks Rapert's would impose, to have an abortion. But unlike Rapert's, it makes it more difficult to obtain an abortion after the gestation cut-off, excluding abortion in the case of rape, incest or psychological threat, even suicidal ideation. Lowery will testify against it before the Senate public health committee next week. Neither bill is constitutional, because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb until 23-25 weeks, the standard of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legislators have heard from several women who have chosen to deliver infants with serious health problems, including fatal ones, who've said it was right for them. What about women for whom it would not be right?* See a video about a Nebraska woman who was not allowed to terminate her pregnancy after the fetal sac ruptured here.

*Oh, yes, forgot. Mayberry said these are immoral women.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]