Abortion and Family Planning
Violence Against Women
Congress is planning an extended recess during the month of February to allow members to return to their home districts, but will reconvene in late February or early March take a final vote on the Canady-Smith bill (H.R. 1833/ S.939) which prohibits late term abortion procedures (dilation and extraction or D & X). The bill's conference committee is working to reconcile differences between Senate and House versions, most notable of which is a narrow life endangerment amendment contained in the Senate bill.
The Women's Legal Defense Fund has analyzed the narrow life endangerment amendment and concluded that it will not protect women facing life-threatening or health-endangering situations in late pregnancy and may even jeopardize women's lives. The language of the amendment says that the exception will be allowed if the woman's life is endangered by a "physical disorder, illness, or injury." A pregnancy is not a physical disorder, illness or injury. Clearly, its sponsors intend women to die or to suffer grave health consequences or die when a late term pregnancy complication occurs. The amendment does not provide an exception to preserve the woman's health and it would not prevent doctors from being convicted who terminate pregnancies when the condition of the fetus makes safe delivery impossible.
It the D & X bill becomes a law, it is questionable whether it would stand up to a challenge in the courts. The United States District Court of the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Walter Rice, issued an extensive, 100 page opinion on December 11, 1995, granting a preliminary injunction against an Ohio late-term abortion ban (HB 135). The court found that the dilation and extraction method poses fewer health risks than other procedures and specifically rejected the claim that the D & X abortion procedure was not within accepted medical standards.
Judge Rice also ruled that the Ohio law was unconstitutionally vague, that the D & X ban violates the undue burden standard established under the United States Supreme Court ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and found that the prohibition on late abortions is likely to be held invalid because, "although a state may proscribe most abortions subsequent to viability, the state may not take away a pregnant woman's right to have a post-viability abortion where, in appropriate medical judgement, such an abortion is necessary to preserve her life and health."
It is important that everyone contact their members of Congress and express their opposition to this legislation. It is clear that women's lives will be lost if the bill passes, even with the meaningless life endangerment provision. Those Democratic House members who voted for the bill, but might switch their vote if given additional information about the dangers of the legislation are: Bill Hefner (NC), Patrick Kennedy (RI), James Moran (VA), Lewis Payner (VA), John Dingell (MI), Floyd Flake (NY), Thomas Foglietta (PA), Harold Ford (TN), Richard Gephardt (MO), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Charlie Rose (NC), and James Traficant (OH). Democratic members who voted for passage and who are long shots on switching their vote (but nonetheless ought to be contacted) are: Bart Gordon (TN), David Minge (MN), Earl Pomeroy (ND), and John Tanner (TN).
Republican House members who might switch their vote on Canady-Smith are: Charles Bass (NH), Michael Castle (DE), Bob Franks (NJ), Susan Molinari (NY), Bill Zeliff (NH), and Amo Houghton (NY). Additionally, quick letters and phone calls to the White House would be helpful to reinforce President Bill Clinton's promise to veto the bill without a life and health exception; 44 Senators voted against the D & X bill and it is not likely that a veto could be overridden.
In the 22nd vote that the 104th Congress had taken to whittle away at women's legal and constitutional right to abortion, the House of Representatives on Thursday, February 1 approved the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Conference Report on S. 652) which could ban discussion of any abortion topic via the Internet or other interactive computer on-line communications services. Buried deeply within the bill was a change to Section 1462 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code pertaining to importation and interstate transmission of obscene information or materials, originally known as the "Comstock Law" passed in the late 1800's. Under this provision, any individual who discusses abortion or transmits other written material concerning abortion over the Internet or other on-line computer communications services could face a fine of up to $250,000 and up to five years imprisonment.
Rep. Henry Hyde (D-IL), who has long been an architect of anti-abortion legislation in Congress, offered the amendment as part of the so-called Communications Decency Act which was supported by a number of far right organizations, including the Family Research Council.
Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY), Pat Schroeder (D-CO), and Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY) decried this attempt to control free speech and limit women's ability to obtain information about abortion. Rep. Schroeder termed this effort a "high tech gag rule." Rep. Hyde stated in floor remarks before the vote that nothing in the provision would constrain free speech; however, others interpreted the language to be a straightforward effort at censorship.
Several organizations, in at least two lawsuits, will be challenging the provision. NOW will be a plaintiff in one of those actions. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (PPFA), also a plaintiff in the action, noted that 80 years ago Margaret Sanger, founder of that organization, was jailed for violation of the anti-vice "Comstock Law" which defined contraceptive information as "obscene" and forbade its dissemination.
Let your member of Congress know how unhappy you are with the repeated efforts to limit women's access to abortion and how you disapprove of this effort to limit free speech concerning abortion. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about it as well.
Efforts will be made to secure continued funding for Title X family planning funds for FY 1996 and FY 1997 by supporters in Congress. Last year, Rep. Robert Livingston (R-LA) offered a successful amendment to an appropriations measure to zero out those funds, but it was later reversed by an amendment offered by Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA). Greenwood is also sponsoring H.R. 833 which would allow only those clinics to receive federal funds which offer a full range of information about contraception, pregnancy, and abortion and are staffed by professionally accredited medical and counseling personnel. Title X, it should be noted, funds only family planning services, not abortion services, and supports 4,000 clinics nation-wide. Naturally, without that funding women's access to critical preventive health services would be jeopardized.
On the international front, the long-standing impasse on the foreign aid appropriations bill was broken in late January when a "compromise" was reached on the dispute over the international family planning program. When it became clear that neither the Senate nor the Administration would change their positions on the international gag rule/ Mexico City policy, the House leadership forced a proposal that drastically cut international family planning funds.
Under that proposal, U.S. assistance for these programs is reduced from $547 million in fiscal 1995 to $72 million this fiscal year. The Continuing Resolution (funded for the remainder of the fiscal year) foreign assistance, including the humanitarian assistance programs of the Agency for International Development, with an overall budget cut on the order of 25%. The legislation, however, singles out family planning/reproductive health/population programs for special and disastrously harsh treatment. No funds can be made available until after July 1, 1996.
Tell your member of Congress that funding domestic and international family planning programs is the best way to limit the number of abortions and at the same time protect the health of women and adolescents. Let him/her know that 64% of the American public would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported continued funding of federal family planning programs, according to a recent Hickman-Brown Public Opinion Research survey. A list of targeted members on this issue is being developed and will be distributed soon.
Full implementation of the Violence Against Women Act is being stalled due to differences between the Congress and the President on balancing the federal budget. Advocates fear that the deadlock over the budget and other issues threatens an abandonment of the commitment to combating domestic violence that was made by the 103rd Congress a little more than one year ago. The issue is one strictly of full funding for all programs at the full authorized levels.
The National Network Against Domestic Violence and NOW/LDEF note that if the current situation persists -- funding Department of Justice programs that will increase the demand for services, but not the services themselves -- victims of violence will pay the price. For example, the National Domestic Violence Hotline is due to go into operation in late February, but without adequate shelter space and services, victims can make a phone call but may find that shelters are filled.
programs, which were authorized by Congress to provide additional, desperately needed shelter space. The increase could provide shelter for an additional 60,000 women across the country. The CR funds HHS VAWA programs through March 15th on a pro rata basis, based on last year's funding level of $26 million -- about $8 million less than the administration had requested and Congress had authorized. Many of the new VAWA programs were scheduled to have begun Oct. 1, 1995 at the beginning of the federal fiscal year, and therefore have yet to be launched. The new programs include $8 million for grant programs to reduce sexual assault that would benefit an estimated 700,000 women and a model youth violence prevention program.
Three VAWA programs at the Centers for Disease Control were funded through September (FY 95). They include a grant program for rape prevention and education at rape crisis centers funded at $28.542 million, a grant program to establish projects in local communities involving many sectors of the community to coordinate intervention and prevention of domestic violence funded at $3 million, and a crime victims study on the incidence and costs of domestic violence, funded at $100,000.
The CR funds the Justice Department programs at $175 million, nearly the amount which the administration requested. Deleted were programs for badly needed state and federal judges training progams and a study of campus assault.
Let your Congress member know that women and children are being injured while Congress and the President fight over balancing the budget. The second most important message is that ALL Violence Against Women Act programs need to be fully funded and none should be deleted from what is a comprehensive package. All of its pieces fit together. Let your Congress member know that budget cuts have already been made as part of the process to fund crime prevention programs, including VAWA, which was part of the Violence Crime Control and Enforcement Law of 1994. To pay for programs in this bill, Congress cut domestic spending and the federal government workforce. Savings generated from these cuts go into the Crime Trust Fund, and all programs created as part of the 1994 law are funded through that Fund.
Letters to the editor on this issue would be helpful in addition to contacting your members of Congress during the recess. Targeted members that should be written, faxed, or called in their district offices are: Reps. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) in Atlanta, Richard Armey (R-TX) in Fort Worth, John Boehner (R-OH) in Hamilton/Troy, Bob Livingston (R-LA) in Baton Rouge, Thomas DeLay (R-TX) in Houston, Harold Rogers (R-KY) in Pikeville, Susan Molinari (R-NY) in Brooklyn-Staten Island, John Porter (R-IL) in Chicago/Deerfield, Richard Gephardt (D-MO) in St. Louis, David Bonior (D-MI) in Mt. Clemens, Vic Fazio (D-CA) in Sacramento, David Obey (D-WI) in Wausau, and Alan Mollohan (D-WV) in Morgantown.
This Legislative Update was compiled by the Government Relations/Public Policy Team at the National NOW office. Call Jan Erickson, Government Relations Director and GR/PP Team Liaison, at (202) 628-8669, ex. 705, if you have any questions. For copies of any of the above bills, call your Senator or Representative at (202) 224-3121 who will send you copies free of charge. This update is mailed monthly to NOW leadership. Any member can get the update for a yearly charge of $25.