Read the week's best commentary from bloggers at the Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress," Huffington Post blogs and more.
MEDICATION ABORTION:
"The FDA just removed one of anti-abortion lawmakers' favorite talking points," Tara Culp-Ressler, Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress": "Thanks to a policy change from the Food and Drug Administration announced on Wednesday, it may get harder for anti-choice lawmakers to rely on unscientific information to restrict women's access to the abortion pill," Culp-Ressler writes. She explains that FDA on Wednesday updated its "previous guidelines for mifepristone -- which were first issued back in 2000 and have since become outdated." According to Culp-Ressler, in the years after the drug was first approved, "[m]edical professionals quickly confirmed that it's just as safe and effective when prescribed at lower dosages and later in pregnancy," which she writes "expands access [to] the abortion pill because it allows patients to take the pill at a lower price and during a bigger window of time." Based on this scientific evidence, "doctors stopped following the official FDA label and started prescribing mifepristone differently than directed," Culp-Ressler continues, noting that "more than 80 percent of providers" as of 2001 "were no longer using the FDA-approved protocol." Noting that such off-label use of drugs is "very common" because re-labeling is a slow and often expensive process, Culp-Ressler writes that "major medical groups like the American [Congress] of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have for years opposed using the outdated FDA protocol." However, according to Culp-Ressler, "anti-abortion lawmakers -- who have mounted an incremental strategy based on chipping away at abortion from all angles -- were quick to exploit the discrepancy between the official FDA label and the real-world medical practice." They enacted laws -- under the guise of protecting women's health -- that required providers to adhere to the outdated label, Culp-Ressler writes, noting however that "[t]he FDA's label change essentially removes this talking point from the anti-choice playbook." She quotes Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, who said, "'Actual [medical] practice will not change ... What will change is that politicians can no longer deny women access to this safe and effective method of early abortion care by insisting on an out-dated regimen'" (Culp-Ressler, "ThinkProgress," Center for American Progress, 3/30).
ZUBIK V. BURWELL:
"Religious liberty and the big business of Catholic nonprofits," Jon O'Brien, Huffington Post blogs: O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, writes about the role business plays in the Supreme Court case challenging the federal contraceptive rules' accommodation for not-for-profits that hold themselves out as religious and oppose contraception. O'Brien writes that while the "Catholic hierarchy" claims the accommodation "violates its religious freedom ... there is something a little more worldly at stake." He explains, "Catholic healthcare and nonprofit organizations are multi-million dollar businesses" that "have large investments with federal contracts that should bring some expectation of playing by larger society's rules." However, "in 2011, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) created the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty for the express purpose of rewriting policy so they could have their federal dollars and discriminate, too," he writes, noting that one of the government concessions USCCB requested "was for any employer to be able to deny contraception coverage to employees by citing 'religious freedom.'" O'Brien explains that this "aggressive lobbying pressured the Obama administration to create a loophole exploited by organizations -- religious or not -- to claim exemptions from the [Affordable Care Act's (PL 111-148)] contraceptive benefit." However, according to O'Brien, "it was not enough for the bishops and their allies," who now argue in Zubik "that even the expectation to fill out a form notifying the government that they do not plan on offering contraceptive coverage violates their religious freedom." O'Brien writes, "If Zubik wins, it could be disastrous for the hundreds of thousands of employees at Catholic nonprofit organizations, the 163,431 lay teachers at Catholic schools and the 639 Catholic hospitals that employ more than 516,410 full-time employees and 220,795 part-time workers," as well as the employees and students at Catholic universities and colleges. Moreover, "a win for Zubik will actually be catastrophic for real religious freedom," O'Brien writes. He explains, "At stake in these cases are the religious liberty rights of all workers in the United States -- their rights to live their lives according to their own beliefs and consciences, and their freedom from having their employers' beliefs forced upon them. It will disrespect the two essential ingredients for religious freedom: freedom from and of religion." He calls on the Supreme Court to uphold the accommodation, noting that "women's ability to make their own contraceptive decisions should never have been on trial to begin with" (O'Brien, Huffington Post blogs, 3/29).
What others are saying about Zubik v. Burwell:
~ "A puzzling order in a U.S. Supreme Court case on Obamacare," Matt Ford, The Atlantic.
~ "How to make sense of the baffling order the Supreme Court just handed down on birth control," Ian Millhiser, Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress."
ABORTION RESTRICTIONS:
"New Utah law mandates anesthesia in certain abortions, defying medical ethics," Christina Cauterucci, Slate's "XX factor": In signing a bill (SB 234) that requires physicians to administer anesthesia to a fetus when providing abortion care at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) "defi[ed] testimony from medical experts who warned that it would force women to take unnecessary health risks to satisfy the political whims of conservative legislators," Cauterucci writes. She explains that not only is the law based on scientifically unfounded claims regarding fetal pain, but the move to "[l]egislat[e] doctors' medical decisions is a reckless, dangerous game that puts women's lives at risk." According to Cauterucci, "Anesthetic drugs increase the likelihood of complications and negative health outcomes of a very safe procedure; subjecting women to anesthesia against their wishes or their doctors' recommendations is cruel." Moreover, Cauterucci points out that while "[c]onservatives have long invoked specters of ... government-controlled robot doctors," lawmakers through this legislation have "literally told doctors what drugs they must administer to women during a specific medical procedure." Even the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Curt Bramble (R), "admitted that he didn't know whether his bill would require an anesthesiologist or whether special drugs or medical equipment were needed to comply with the new law," Cauterucci writes, adding, "Of course he didn't -- he's not a doctor!" Cauterucci continues, "Unfortunately, lack of medical knowledge is no injunction against passing dangerous medical legislation," citing other state laws that "force doctors to lie to abortion-seeking patients." Further, according to Cauterucci, "Forcing doctors to use anesthesia in Utah could make it even more difficult for them to serve their patients safely and expediently" and make it "harder for abortion providers to fund full-time positions and attract employees willing to take a job that might be legislated out of existence at a moment's notice." Cauterucci concludes, "As [the law] stands, it's nothing more than risky medical meddling and a punishment and shaming tactic against women who have ... abortions" (Cauterucci, "XX factor," Slate, 3/29).
What others are saying about abortion restrictions:
~ "Zika's spread across the United States changes the narrative around abortion," Alex Zielinski, Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress."
~ "Periods for Pence is why you should tell Indiana's governor about your menstrual cycle," Karen Yuan, Bustle.
ANTIABORTION-RIGHTS MOVEMENT:
"Anti-choice witch-hunts: The movement turns to McCarthyist tactics to intimidate women and doctors," Amanda Marcotte, Salon: "Every time you think [antiabortion-rights activists and legislators have] hit a new low, they find another layer to dig down to when it comes to novel ways to make women and their families suffer," Marcotte writes, noting the latest "tactics are so invasive and cruel that even Joe McCarthy might have thought they're going a little too far with it all." She cites a "hair-curling" story reported by Sharona Coutts at Rewire in which abortion-rights opponents in Mississippi took a 17-year-old pregnant young woman "across state lines, to a crisis pregnancy center, where she was tricked into signing a phony legal document promising not to get an abortion." Marcotte notes that when the young woman decided to terminate her pregnancy, antiabortion-rights activists used the document, as well as antiabortion-rights lawyers falsely claiming to represent the girl, "to harass and terrorize this girl, her mother, and the doctors who were trying to help her get an abortion." "This embrace of McCarthyist tactics of stalking and using threats of legal action as harassment isn't limited to this one case," Marcotte writes, adding, "Anti-choicers have been targeting multiple women, especially teenagers, with these phony documents and threats of lawsuit and arrest aimed at anyone who helps them get an abortion." Moreover, these tactics are "also spilling over into the realm of medical research," Marcotte continues, highlighting how one congressional investigation targeting abortion providers and fetal tissue research has "turned to legal harassment, through phony 'investigations,' that is putting a major chill on medical research involving fetal tissue," including work on Parkinson's disease and the Zika virus. She adds, "While congressional efforts, led by [Rep. Marsha] Blackburn [R-Tenn.], are focused on using McCarthyist intimidation tactics to scare doctors away from life-saving research, some states have moved to passing laws to eradicate this life-saving research," including six that "have banned it outright." Marcotte writes that McCarthyist tactics "aren't about logic so much as stoking an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, to keep the McCarthyists in power while everyone else [is] under a cloud of suspicion." She concludes, "It doesn't matter if the supposed threat is communism, female sexuality, or science. The game is ultimately about power and fear and the pleasure that sadistic reactionaries get out of inflicting suffering on others" (Marcotte, Salon, 3/31).
What others are saying about the antiabortion-rights movement:
~ "The history of abortion rights in red states will come as a surprise," Lauren Holter, Bustle.
~ "Spoiler alert: Women are already being punished for having abortions," Tara Culp-Ressler, Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress."
~ "Donald Trump's 'punishment' talk exposes abortion foes' true face," Peter Montgomery, Daily Beast.
LGBT:
"The new Mississippi bill proves the anti-LGBT & anti-choice movements have so much in common," Emily Shire, Bustle: The Mississippi Senate on Thursday advanced a "severely anti-LGBT religious freedom" measure (HB 1523) that "would potentially -- among many disturbing possibilities -- grant employers the right to fire workers simply because they are part of the LGBT community and impede foster or adoption arrangements due to a parent's sexual orientation or because they are trans," Shire writes. According to Shire, the Mississippi House is "expected to vote to approve this revised [bill] early next week." Shire explains that the measure uses the guise of religious freedom to shield "employers, vendors, organization[s], and individuals from being held accountable for discriminating against members of the LGBT community." Detailing some of the bill's provisions, Shire notes that the legislation would allow people and organizations to "refus[e] to help or serve non-heterosexual couples and families, whether it's in trying to have a child or get married." Shire writes, "While marriage equality advocates may have briefly thought they could rest easy after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 and guaranteed same-sex couples the right to wed in 2015, they are now realizing that is simply not the case," citing other state anti-LGBT bills similarly advanced under the guise of religious freedom. She explains, "If states increasingly vote to protect clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, officials who refuse to perform weddings for same-sex couples, and reception halls and other businesses who refuse to house and serve same-sex couples, it is going to [be] pretty difficult for same-sex couples [to] actually exercise that right to wed." Shire points out the similarities between anti-LGBT efforts and the antiabortion-rights movement, noting that abortion-rights opponents similarly restricted the right to abortion after Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by enacting "onerous restrictions on abortion providers and women seeking the procedure" so that women, "practically speaking," could not access abortion care. Shire concludes, "These state-level attacks on LGBT rights and reproductive rights aim to put so many hurdles and pains in front of citizens that they are logistically prevented from exerting their Constitutional rights. They are sneaky, underhanded, and, unfortunately, potentially very successful" (Shire, Bustle, 3/31).
What others are saying about LGBT issues:
~ "Here's why North Carolina's GOP governor is ignoring the backlash to the state's new attack on LGBT people," Elias Isquith, Salon.
~ "The differing responses to anti-LGBT laws in Georgia & North Carolina," Katie Barnes, Feministing.
