Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
A Look Back at 2012

A Look Back at 2012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
In 2012, 19 states passed more than 40 laws restricting women's reproductive rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights has published a report looking back at 2012 a the anti-choice legislators and the laws they proposed.
In 2012, 19 states passed more than 40 laws restricting women's reproductive rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights has published a report looking back at 2012 a the anti-choice legislators and the laws they proposed.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Deb Equality Della Piana on Jan 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
2012: A Look BAck 
www.reproductiverights.org
 
2
2012: A Look BAck  | THE cENTER FoR REPRoDUcTIVE RIGHTS
RepRoductive Rights in 2012:A Look BAck At the stAtes
Every year, the Center or Reproductive Rights tracks hundredso legislative measures proposed by anti-choice state legislatorswho intend to erode women’s rights to abortion and reproductivehealth care. Some o the bills aim to restrict access by imposingmandatory waiting periods, ideologically biased counselingprovisions, and other burdensome, unnecessary requirements.Other proposals are ar more extreme, including those designed toban abortion or prohibit women rom accessing contraception.
Ater an intense onslaught o anti-choice legislation 2011, pro-choice advocates and legislatorswent into this year more determined than ever to stop harmul legislation rom becoming law.Citizens, advocates, and many stalwart legislators throughout the country have ought back,standing up or women and their access to reproductive health care. In addition, the Centerand other advocates have taken some o the most invasive and unconstitutional restrictions tothe courts, where many measures have been enjoined or struck down entirely. Although anti-choice legislators and activists introduced hundreds o restrictive bills, as they do every year,ewer passed in 2012 than in 2011, and, as usual, most were rejected. Nonetheless, over40 pieces o anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-contraception legislation became law. Severalblatantly unconstitutional laws were so immediately harmul to women’s health and rights thatthe Center, along with allies in advocacy, immediately led suit:
Arizona:
The Center, along with the ACLU, defected a setback in district court and secureda preliminary injunction against the most extreme anti-abortion law in recent memory—aban on abortion that threatens the lives and health o women. (See pp. 6-7 or
oradditional details on law and the case.)
Mississippi:
Anti-choice legislators are trying to shutter the state’s last abortion clinic anddeprive women o constitutionally protected reproductive health care. The Center has so arblocked this inappropriate targeted regulation o abortion providers, or TRAP law, rom takingeect. (See pp. 8 and
or more details.)As we prepare or 2013, the Center oers this recap o the major trends o 2012, a state-by-state analysis o the past year’s enacted laws, notes on some o the positive legislation enactedthat will improve women’s health and saeguard their rights, and a look at what the nextlegislative session may bring.
 
2012: A Look BAck | THE cENTER FoR REPRoDUcTIVE RIGHTS
3
insuRAnce RestRictions
Spurred by the passage o the ederal Aordable Care Act (ACA), state legislaturesconsidered or the third year in a row a number o proposals to limit or eliminate women’saccess to insurance coverage or abortion. Most o the 15 states in which such legislationwas introduced ocused on the state health exchanges that will be created as a result o ACA.Under the ACA, states may ban abortion coverage rom state exchanges altogether, and in2012, our states—Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin—passed bansthat prohibit coverage in the exchanges, with only limited exceptions. Other states consideredmuch broader restrictions or abortion both in and outside o the exchange. At the very endo the year, the Michigan legislature enacted legislation that would have prohibited insurersrom oering insurance coverage or abortion in any situation other than to prevent a woman’sdeath, but Gov. Risk Snyder vetoed the bill, citing a number o concerns, including theintrusion into the private market and the lack o exception or women’s health or in cases o rape or incest.These bills go against the very purpose o health insurance, prohibiting individuals romprotecting themselves rom unpredictable and costly health care and discriminating againstwomen in the most undamental way.
teLeMedicine RestRictions
Anti-abortion legislators sought to limit women’s access to medication abortion in 2012, withat least 10 states considering proposals to prohibit the provision o medication abortionthrough telemedicine. For rural and low-income individuals, telemedicine has become acritical delivery method or health care, enhancing the quality o care or many people in theUnited States. In the context o medication abortion, a rural patient may visit a local healthclinic and be examined by an on-site health care proessional, then talk with a physicianworking remotely who can review her health records, answer her questions, and providethe medication abortion. By the end o 2012, Wisconsin and Michigan had banned the useo telemedicine or medication abortion, and Oklahoma had added urther restrictions to itsexisting telemedicine ban. On a positive note, while the Minnesota legislature passed a similarproposal, Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed that bill in May.
.
tARgeted RestRictions o ABoRtion pRovideRs (tRAp)
Anti-abortion legislators in 12 states considered bills that would regulate the provision o abor-tion services by imposing burdensome requirements on abortion providers that are dierentand more stringent than regulations applied to comparable medical practices. Michiganpassed legislation requiring most abortion acilities to become licensed as “reestandingoutpatient surgical acilities,” essentially orcing them to meet the standards o small hospitals.
Mississippi and Tennessee both passed TRAPlegislation requiring any physician who provides abortion services to have admitting privileges
MAJoR tRends in 2012

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->