Women's Issues Back in the Spotlight
Planned Parenthood activists in Columbus, Ohio in 2009. Courtesy of flickr.com/ProgressOhio
The 2010 elections not only put Congressmen and Senators up to a vote, but many state-level legislators and governors as well. Many states saw new governors and drastically different makeups in their legislative branches. During these new sessions, many state governments have placed an unprecedented amount of attention on women’s issues, ranging from abortion services to funding for women’s health clinics. This Weekly Focus examines this recent upsurge in bills regarding women’s concerns, investigates potential reasons for this trend, and considers the implications of certain laws in three state-specific case studies.
Last week, a bill that could shut down Mississippi’s sole remaining abortion clinic was passed by the state legislature. Republican Governor Phil Bryant has promised to sign the bill, which would be the final step making the bill a law and would add Mississippi to the growing list of states that have recently passed legislation for the purposes of limiting abortion services. The new law requires abortions to be performed by a certified OB-GYN with admitting privileges at a local hospital—a mandate that is problematic for the state’s lone abortion clinic, as only one of their physicians currently has such a hard-to-acquire certification. Diane Derzis, who runs the clinic, argues that the law will not enhance patient safety; and while she has confirmed that the clinic will do everything they can to comply with the law, they will sue if necessary to keep their doors open.
This legislation comes a few months after Mississippi voters rejected the so-called “personhood amendment” in a ballot initiative. The amendment, which would have declared life to begin at fertilization, was intended to inspire a court battle due to its direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. The ultimate hope of several social conservative groups is that if a case challenging Roe v. Wade were to appear before the Supreme Court, the body will overturn the ruling. The defeat of the measure was largely unexpected, as Mississippi currently has some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws and an electorate that overwhelmingly describes itself as pro-life. Public uncertainty over the measure was raised in part by the Governor’s own public qualms over the bill, doctors’ concerns about the implications of the amendment on their practices, and the opposition of Methodist and Catholic clergy. The state’s new law regarding the clinic illustrates a reinvigoration by political leaders on the abortion issue.
An increased interest in women’s issues has similarly arisen in Oklahoma. Since Republicans gained control of the Oklahoma state legislature in 2010, they have introduced several bills to restrict access to abortion. The bills have wide ranging tactics and have all met legal challenge; a law requiring pregnant women to have ultrasounds and hear a description of the fetus prior to abortion was recently ruled unconstitutional in a district court. The most recent bill to come before the legislature is a ‘personhood’ bill. Oklahoma’s personhood bill is expected to pass the House of Representatives within the next few weeks, and Oklahoma’s Republican governor will likely sign it.
This bill has not gone unopposed. State Senator Constance Johnson (D) mockingly introduced a ‘spilled semen’ amendment to the personhood bill, proposing to outlaw the spilling of semen anywhere but inside a woman’s vagina. Johnson hoped to call attention to the “hypocrisy and inconsistency” with which men’s and women’s reproductive health issues are treated. Only four of the 48 members of the Oklahoma state senate are women, raising interesting questions about the role of women in making the laws that regulate their own bodies.
The effects of a personhood law would do more than just restrict abortion access; it could also outlaw certain types of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and life-saving procedures for women with ectopic pregnancies or pregnancy-related health issues. There is also no exception in the bill for victims of rape or incest.
Outside of the legislature, Personhood USA is leading a movement to put to a vote the addition of a personhood amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution, similar to the one proposed and rejected in Mississippi. At the end of March, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit against the proposed amendment in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, claiming that the proposed amendment violates the federal Constitution, and arguing that it prioritizes the rights of the unborn over the right of a pregnant woman to decide whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term.
These are only a few of the initiatives in motion in Oklahoma to restrict access to abortion. While pro-life movements have always had a large presence in Oklahoma, they have a strong avenue of action with Republicans increasing their control of both the House and the Senate. A constitutional amendment put to a referendum is unlikely to pass if Mississippi is any indicator, and the legislative path is proving a more viable alternative. If the bill passes, it puts the pro-choice camp in a dilemma: challenging the bill might eventually give the Court the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, but letting the law go unchallenged would severely limit women’s access to many health services.
Like both Mississippi and Oklahoma, Texas too has been recently grappling with new laws concerning women’s health. With the passage of two abortion-related measures, the 82nd session of the Texas state legislature caused a national stir on two separate occasions last year. One measure reduced the state’s spending on family planning services by $60 million and—most controversially—prohibited the state’s Medicaid-funded Women's Health Program from paying for health care at clinics that have ties to abortion providers, of which Planned Parenthood is the most well-known. The measure has generated legal controversy to match the considerable political dispute surrounding it. Just last week, Planned Parenthood filed a suit in federal court in an attempt to prevent the law from taking effect. On the other side of the political spectrum, last month the Texas Attorney General sued the federal Department of Health and Human Services in an effort to reverse its decision to disqualify the state’s Women’s Health Program from federal funding; the agency holds that the aforementioned measure violates the Social Security Act, making the state ineligible for federal funds.
The second—perhaps even more contentious—measure requires women seeking to have an abortion to first have a physician perform a sonogram 24 hours before the abortion, display and explain the sonogram image, and make the fetal heartbeat audible. The two mandates, although applauded by social conservatives, have received intense criticism from women’s rights groups. Texans seem to be somewhat split on the issue: a May 2011 poll found that that 58 percent of likely voters are in favor of requiring doctors to do sonograms before performing abortions, but the same proportion of likely voters opposed defunding all facilities that provide abortions or “abortion-related services.”
The passage of these measures is probably largely due to the changing partisan composition of the Texas legislature: Republicans nearly lost control of the state House in 2009, but extended their two-seat majority to a 52-seat majority in the 2011 elections. And, as University of Texas political scientist Sean Theriault noted in the Christian Science Monitor, “social issues are coming up because they're easier to pass.” The combination of these two factors probably made for a potent mixture, leading Texas’ conservative Republican legislators to pass these measures, in spite of whatever resistance they might generate from women’s groups.