Migration Category: news-10001-15000-national

A Texas judge denied Planned Parenthood’s request to be included in the state’s new women’s health program on Friday. The program, now known as the Texas Women’s Health Program, provides funding for preventive health care services for low-income women. Previously, the program was a Medicaid program in which the federal government had provided 90% of the program’s budget. According to Reuters, federal funding was withdrawn at the end of 2012 because the state decided to enforce a law preventing this type of funding for abortion providers and their affiliates. A nearly identical state funded program was launched January 1.

In the ruling, Judge Stephen Yelenosky wrote “If, as plaintiffs argue, a successor program must be Medicaid-funded then the only legal remedy would be for this court to shut down the state-funded women’s health program, not to order the inclusion of Planned Parenthood,” reported CNN.

Regina Rogoff, Executive Director of the People’s Community Clinic in Austin did not have her funding cut by the program because her clinic is an independent family planning clinic that does not provide abortions. However, Rogoff told ABC, “The idea the state is putting a gag order on what physicians can say to a patient is just offensive…We are sorely tempted to entirely withdraw from this program to avoid giving the appearance that we support it.” Rogoff was referring to the fact that Texas has been targeting any clinic that may assist a patient in setting up an appointment or making any arrangements for the patient to obtain abortion services.

In an episode aired on Thursday night, NBC’s prime-time television show “Parenthood” highlighted the decision of two characters who decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

In the episode, a teenage couple is confronted with an unintended pregnancy and the woman decides to have an abortion. While her male partner is reluctant to terminate the pregnancy, he supports the decision and accompanies her to the appointments at Planned Parenthood. As part of the episode, the couple is featured in a consultation where a representative of Planned Parenthood discusses the various options: parenting, adoption, and abortion.

Chris Weigant, a blogger on Huffington Post, described the episode “In less than two weeks, the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Roe v. Wade case will be 40 years old. Four decades later, the debate over abortion still rages. But it is a debate that is largely silent on the small screen. Even last night, abortion did not really dare to speak its name.” He continues “Forty years [after Roe v. Wade], however, abortion has not made the same leap toward acceptability on television [as same sex marriage, for example]. Even in a show whose plot focuses on abortion, the word itself is not (or only barely, or partially) even heard. Abortion is referenced less often than even birth control (another subject still mostly in television’s taboo closet).”

The first television character to have an abortion was Maude in 1972. Since then few shows have shown a main or supporting characters choosing an abortion as a key element of the plot development of the show. The majority of characters depicted facing an unwanted pregnancy miscarry the pregnancy or choose to raise the child.

On Wednesday, a federal appeals court upheld a Massachusetts law establishing a protest-free “buffer zone” around abortion clinics.

The 1st U.S. district Court of Appeals determined that a 2007 law establishing a 35-foot “buffer zone” around abortion clinic entrances, exits and driveways did not violate the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters. Protesters claimed that the buffer zone prevents them from conversing with patients in a close proximity. The plaintiffs plan to appeal the court’s decision.

“The nation is sharply divided about the morality of the practice and its place in a caring society. But the right of the state to take reasonable steps to ensure the safe passage of persons wishing to enter health care facilities cannot seriously be questioned,” the court stated in its ruling. “The Massachusetts statute at issue here is a content-neutral, narrowly tailored time-place-manner regulation that protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees without offending the First Amendment rights of others.”

The 2007 law has been challenged in court repeatedly. An earlier version of the law was ruled constitutional in 2001 and 2004 by the same court. When the law was revised in 2007, it was appealed and upheld in 2009.

On Tuesday, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Bronx Trespass Affidavit Program’s (TAP) “stop-and-frisk” practices when performed without reasonable suspicion.

Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Federal Court District of Manhattan ruled that aspects of the stop-and-frisks used by the New York Police Department were unconstitutional because officers were stopping individuals outside of residential buildings without sufficient suspicion that they were trespassing. Scheindlin also issued an injunction against stop-and-frisks by officers unless there is substantial evidence that an individual is trespassing. She is also considering ordering the NYPD to adopt a written policy that defines the limited cases in which an individual may be stopped as part of TAP.

“While it may be difficult to say where, precisely, to draw the line between constitutional and unconstitutional police encounters, such a line exists, and the NYPD has systematically crossed it when making trespass stops” Scheindlin wrote in her decision. “The evidence of numerous unlawful stops at the hearing strengthens the conclusion that the NYPD’s inaccurate training has taught officers the following lesson: stop and question first, develop suspicions later.”

As part of the TAP program, property managers authorized the NYPD to patrol inside residential buildings and arrest those they find trespassing. However, Judge Scheindlin found that officers were frisking individuals that were only seen entering or leaving the building even if the individuals were guests or residents who did not have their identification.

“For those of us who do not fear being stopped as we approach or leave our own homes or those of our friends and families, it is difficult to believe that residents of one of our boroughs live under such a threat. In light of the evidence presented at the hearing, however, I am compelled to conclude that this [is unconstitutional],” concluded Scheindlin.

Lawmakers in West Virginia are forming a subcommittee to look at possible new sex education policies the state can implement in order to address the high numbers of teenagers who do not use birth control in the state.

The panel convened on Monday to review statistics about sexual activity among middle school and high school students. At the meeting, Assistant Director of the Office of Health Schools for West Virginia’s Department of Education Doug Chapman told the panel the results of a 2011 survey of 40,000 students and urged the panel to consider a more comprehensive approach to sex education in West Virginia schools.

According to Chapman, the bi-annual survey showed that over half of middle and high school student in West Virginia are sexually active and 75% of those students do not use any form of birth control. In addition, 12% of students reported that they did not learn anything related to preventing HIV/AIDS infection. The statistics showed very minor decreases from results found in 1993 when the survey was first launched (75% down from 79%, and 12% down from 12.9%). Chapman also told the panel that there is no form of health information given to elementary school students.

Erik Wells, the Co-Chair of the committee, told reporters “I think the research has always shown that as you increase education, you actually see numbers go down. I think students, young people want to be informed about the right choices to make and I think that if we increase the degree of education that will help decrease the number of people getting pregnant.”

Currently West Virginia requires that sex education and HIV education be offered in public schools, but there are no regulations enforcing the use of medically accurate or scientifically-based information.

A teacher who alleges that he* was fired from a school where he had worked for over 30 years has filed charges against the Catholic New York City school for damages.

Mark Krolikowski was terminated from St. Francis Preparatory School in August of 2012 after a parent complained about his feminized appearance. Krolikowski confided to then-principle Leonard Conway that he was transgender and after gradually coming to school with more feminized aspects that he was planning to teach as a woman. According to the New York Post, Krolikowski was called “worse than gay” and ordered to tone down his feminine appearance if he wanted to continue to attend public events at the school. Despite agreeing to do so, Krolikowski was later terminated.

Krolikowski’s lawyer Andrew Kimler, told ABC News that although the Catholic school was a private institution he was still protected under city and state anti-discrimination laws. The legal counsel for St. Francis Preparatory School, however, maintains that Krolikowski was terminated for reasons that did not relate to his disclosed gender identity. Currently, an online petition has generated over 1,500 signatures from former and current students defending Krolikowski, “Mr. K” as he is called.

Krowlikowski taught music and social studies at St. Francis for 32 years. He also lead students in musical performances for Pope Benedict the XVI in 2008.

*No pronoun preference has been issued to media sources. As a results, male pronouns were used in accordance with other media sources.

In an op-ed in USA Today, former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly announced that they have launched a Political Action Committee to challenge the dominance of gun-rights lobbyists in Washington, DC, on the two year anniversary of the shooting in Tuscon, Arizona, that left six dead and severely wounded the Congresswoman.

Giffords and Kelly criticized the National Rifle Association’s response to the Sandy Hook Massacre, saying “Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. … Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.”

The PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, will attempt to start national discussion about pro-active and realistic gun control as well as raise funds to rival the clout the National Rifle Association has in Congress. “With Americans for Responsible Solutions engaging millions of people about ways to reduce gun violence and funding political activity nationwide, legislators will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby,” the couple said.

A total of 20 people were shot in the 2011 attack by 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner as Gabrielle Giffords conducted a “Congress on Your Corner” event in front of a market in Tuscon, Arizona. Six people were killed, including federal district judge John M. Roll, and Giffords was shot in the head. Loughner was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The United States Supreme Court announced the scheduled dates for two same sex marriage cases.

On March 26th, the court will hear arguments relating to Proposition 8, the California ban on same sex marriage, in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The next day the court will hear arguments in United States v. Windsor, relating to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which establishes a marriage as between a man and a woman. In each case, the Supreme Court will hear at least an hour’s worth of arguments and can extend the length of the hearings if deemed necessary. The Court is anticipated to issue a ruling in each case by the end of June.

Hollingsworth v. Perry challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8 under the 14th Amendment, which requires states to provide equal protection to all people. United States v. Windsor, will consider the constitutionality of DOMA as it relates to fifth amendment guarantees of equal protection. The decisions of these cases could impact same sex marriage bans in 31 states.

According a recent report issued by the Guttmacher Institute, 2012 saw a record of anti-abortion provisions enacted into law.

The report found that of 122 provisions that related to reproductive health and rights enacted last year, 43 of those were specifically targeted at restricting abortion access. Though the 43 anti-choice provisions came from a total of 19 states, half of the provisions came from only six states: Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Provisions included in the report covered issues such as mandatory ultrasounds, TRAP laws, parental consent, mandatory waiting periods, restrictions to healthcare coverage of abortion, and bans on abortion past 20 weeks.

2012 saw the second highest number of anti-choice provisions enacted in a year on record. The highest was in 2011 with 93 provisions restricting abortion access enacted. However, these totals reflect provisions enacted during a calendar year, not legislative session. When considering the 2011-2012 legislative session, 136 anti-choice provisions were enacted.

In addition, 2013 and the 2013-2014 legislative session are already seeing anti-choice provisions being introduced in state legislatures and in some cases enacted by state governors. Texas has prohibited state funding from being used by any organization affiliated with abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed a TRAP law into effect which requires abortion facilities to meet the same building codes as new hospitals. In the Virginia state legislature, State Senator Thomas Garrett has introduced legislation to prohibit Medicaid funding for an abortion in cases of severe fetal abnormality and Delegate Bob Marshall has proposed legislation to prohibit sex selective abortions and restrict insurance coverage for contraception. In addition, anti-choice provisions that failed in the 2011-2012 legislative session may now be brought forward again with the beginning of a new session.

On Wednesday, the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles, CA overturned the rape conviction of a man who impersonated a woman’s boyfriend in order to have sex with her because the woman was not married.

The district appeals court found that a law from 1827 that criminalized impersonation of a woman’s husband in order have intercourse did not extend to this case because the law did not include protections for women who were not married. “A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, and has sexual intercourse with the woman while pretending to be the boyfriend. Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes,” the court stated. In its ruling, the district appeals court also called on the state legislature to fix the outdated legislation.

The case featured a woman who went to her home with her boyfriend and his friends after a party. After she fell asleep, her boyfriend left and a friend who had also attended the party entered the woman’s room and began to have sex with her. When she realized the man was not her boyfriend, she began to yell and her attacker left. She called her boyfriend who summoned the police. The attacker in question was convicted and served three years in prison.

Twenty-two high school in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, will be part of a condom distribution pilot program in an attempt to reduce sexually transmitted infections and diseases (STIs) among Philadelphia teenagers.

The schools with the highest rates of STIs among students were selected to be a part of the program that features condom dispensers inside school health offices. Condoms were available to students prior to this program once a year when the school district offered free STI testing, but were not available year round. The results of the annual STI tests were used to justify the pilot program as well as to determine which schools would be selected to participate. With the new program, students can take condoms from the dispensers as needed providing that their parents did not elect to opt out of the program.

Philadelphia school district spokesman Fernando Gallard told reporters, “We believe distributing condoms is part of our obligation to keep students healthy and to remain healthy. The health department has described this as a continued epidemic of STDs among teenagers in Philadelphia.” According to Donald F. Schultz, deputy mayor for health and opportunity, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that despite falling STI rates in the city since April 2011, teenagers make up approximately 25% of new HIV infections.

On the last day of her term, outgoing North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue (D) granted a full pardon for ten activists who were convicted of firebombing a grocery store in 1972 as part of a civil rights protest. The group, known as the “Wilmington 10,” were comprised of nine black men and one white woman who served a combined 282 years in prison. Only six of the Wilmington 10 are alive today.

In her statement issuing the pardon, Governor Perdue said “I have spent a great deal of time over the past seven months reviewing the pardon of innocence requests of the persons collectively known as the Wilmington Ten. … These convictions were tainted by naked racism and represent an ugly stain on North Carolina’s criminal justice system that cannot be allowed to stand any longer. Justice demands that this stain finally be removed.”

Benjamin Chavis, one of the Wilmington 10 and former executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, told the Wall Street Journal, “You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but for 40 years, we’ve struggled to prove our innocence. … Finally, everything showed that we were framed up.” He hopes that the pardon will draw attention to changes that still need to be made. “Some people think we’re in a post-civil-rights era, but I disagree with that,” he said. “We still have a lot to do.”

Tom Monaghan, founder of the Domino’s Pizza franchise, was awarded a temporary restraining order by a federal judge on Sunday against the provision under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires employers to provide birth control coverage.

Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff, who issued the temporary restraining order while Monaghan’s lawsuit against the federal government is pending, supported his decision by claiming that Monaghan had “shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion.”

Monaghan, who is devout Catholic, filed a lawsuit against the federal government over the mandate requiring employers to provide coverage for contraception. Monaghan argued that contraception is not healthcare but a “gravely immoral” practice. His is among 11 other lawsuits pending against the federal government on contraception access.

Monaghan sold Domino’s Pizza to Bain Capital in 1998, but is still owner of Domino’s Farms Corp., a land management company in Michigan.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell certified new abortion regulations known as TRAP (targeted regulations of abortion providers) laws on Friday, December 28th. There will be a 60-day public comment period before a final vote by the Virginia Board of Health, likely in March.

These TRAP laws were designed to force existing abortion clinics to meet the same building codes as new hospitals. If enacted, the new regulations would require existing clinics to come into compliance with the regulations within two years or face closure. In September 2012, the Virginia Board of Health voted 13-2 to reverse their previous decision to grandfather in existing clinics, thus exempting them from new, hospital-like restrictions.

The board’s reversal on grandfathering in existing clinics came after Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli refused to accept the grandfather provision and asserted the board did not have the authority to amend the regulations by adding the provision. Cuccinelli also released a memo in September 2012 threatening Board of Health members by stating that they would not be able to receive state legal counsel if they disregarded his recommendations.

In response to Governor McDonnell’s certification of the TRAP laws, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Executive Director Tarina Keene, said in an email statement, “After two years of shocking backroom deals and bullying public health servants, Governor Bob McDonnell is clearly proving his disregard of Virginians’ opinions about women’s health care…Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and McDonnell are clearly pushing an ideological agenda that is out of touch with the residents of this state – they have been using elected office to play political games with the health of women, and they may succeed in passing some of the most extreme state abortion laws in the country while ignoring the will of Virginians.”

Virginia Health Commissioner Dr. Karen Remley resigned from her position in October 2012, citing targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws approved in late September as the primary reason for her resignation.

On Monday, a Texas judge denied Planned Parenthood’s request for a temporary restraining order against enforcing a new measure that prevents the organization from receiving state funding for cancer screenings and well-woman visits. A hearing in a lawsuit regarding the funding restrictions is scheduled for mid-January. As a result, almost 50,000 poor women in Texas will be forced to find new doctors or pay for services at Planned Parenthood out of pocket.

The judge allowed the new law restructuring the Women’s Health Program to go into effect Tuesday. The new guidelines prevent organizations affiliated with abortion providers from receiving state funding as part of the Women’s Health Program. Planned Parenthood has filed several lawsuits trying to have their well-woman funding from the program reinstated.

Ken S. Lambrecht, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, told reporters “It is shocking that once again Texas officials are letting politics jeopardize health care access for women. …This case isn’t about Planned Parenthood — it’s about women like Marcy Balquinta who rely on us for basic, preventive health care.”

In Ohio, Secretary of State Jon Husted’s 11th hour directive that could cause legitimate provisional ballots to be thrown out is being challenged in a federal court by voting rights advocates. On Election Day, provisional ballots were cast by voters whose registration or identification was called into question for some reason when they went to the polls. After multiple courts ensured that early voting would remain intact in Ohio, despite Husted’s efforts to restrict it, at 7pm on the Friday before voting began, Husted issued a directive that shifted the burden of correctly filling in a provisional ballot from the poll workers to the voters, and instructed officials to throw out any ballots with incorrect information. This directive directly contradicted an agreement that had already been reached with US District Judge Algenon Marbley, which stated that the burden was on the poll worker. In addition to disregarding the agreement with the Judge Marbley, voting rights advocates who filed the current lawsuit pointed out that the directive also violated Ohio law, which states: “the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot . . . .” On Wednesday, the day after Election Day, Husted sent his lawyers to US District Judge Algenon Marbley’s court room once again. Arnold Epstein represented the state of Ohio, and was responsible for defending Husted’s directive. The transcript shows that Judge Marbley challenged Epstein again and again over the directive: THE COURT: It only became the voter’s burden after the secretary declared it was the voter’s burden and sent you in here to defend it. You haven’t been able to show me any law that would justify that, nor have you shown me any facts that would require him to change it. [“] THE COURT: Show me where it’s meant. Show me the legislative history. Show me the facts that the secretary used to make the decision to change this directive at seven o’clock on a Friday night on the eve of an election. I want to see it, and I want to see it now. Show it to me. MR. EPSTEIN: Your Honor, I have no legislative history to present to the Court. A ruling in this case is expected later today. Provisional ballots will be counted on November 17th in Ohio. Although the outcome of this election has already been decided, Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic argues that this court case matters in terms of having accurate data on the final popular vote count in Ohio for the 2012 election and it matters in terms of setting a legal precedent for future elections.

Ohio high school students faced disciplinary action early this week for wearing t-shirts that featured messages supporting LGBTQ equality. Last week, while celebrating “twin day” at Celina High School, two students came dressed in “Lesbian 1” and “Lesbian 2” T-shirts, but were forced to remove them. In solidarity, Tuesday, twenty additional students came to school wearing t-shirts of their own creation with the slogans “I Support [Rainbow] Express Yourself” and “Straight but Supportive”. These students were also forced to remove their shirts and faced threat of detention or suspension. According to Think Progress, in a comment, Superintendent Jesse Steiner gave this explanation for the action: “The only reason they would be told that they couldn’t wear something is if it is a disruption of the educational process, or if it’s not allowed in the handbook. And there’s a line in our handbook about drawing undue attention to yourself.” Drew Dennis, litigation coordinator for the American Civil Liberties Union Ohio, said, “It sounds like the school is trying to silence the students who are expressing an unpopular viewpoint on the basis that there will be individuals who disagree with that message.” The school has a history of tolerating other politically minded t-shirts, like “Students for Life” and even hosted a Romney campaign rally at the school this past week. Both the students and the school are seeking legal advice. The students have a strong case due to the precedent set by the historic 1969 Supreme Court Case Tinker v. Des Moines. In this case, the court found that students are entitled free speech as long as it does not disrupt the educational operation of the school.

Last Friday, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction that blocks an Arizona law prohibiting federal funding, through Medicaid, for health providers who also perform abortions. The request was granted to Planned Parenthood since the District Court Judge Neil Wake “said the organization was likely to succeed on the merits of its case”. In a statement, Bryan Howard, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood Arizona, responded that “The court’s ruling protects the right of Arizona women to continue to receive important medical care from the medical providers of their own choice, without interference by the state”. In July, Planned Parenthood sued the state of Arizona in an effort to overturn the law that blocked it from receiving government funds. The law was signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in May and is designed to prevent the allocation of public funds to clinics that also provide abortion in the state. The law will effectively cut funding for all health services provided by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, impacting the nearly 4,000 women receiving Medicaid-funded health care in the state. Arizona does not currently provide tax dollars for abortion and these funds were all allocated for other health services.

Reproductive rights groups are partnering up for the ‘Educate Congress’ initiative, which will send a copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves to every congressional office. The action is designed to educate congressional representatives on how women’s bodies work. Our Bodies, Ourselves was originally published in 1971 by the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective and is currently in its 9th edition. Judith Norsigian, Executive Director of the Our Bodies Ourselves organization, said that the goal of the action is to “advance evidence-based reproductive health policy-making in this country.” She also went on to say, “most of us get pretty poor quality sex education and reproductive health education when we’re growing up. This country has a long way to go in that respect.” Robert Macphearson notes that, after Congressman Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments on August 20, contributors to the latest editions of Our Bodies, Ourselves actually drove from Chicago to hand deliver a copy of the 944-page tome to Akin’s office in Saint Louis, Missouri. To fund the cost of the action, the groups in the Educate Congress initiative are doing a fundraiser on Indiegogo.com, a crowdfunding website. You can learn more about their campaign action plans and goals on their campaign home page.

Missouri Senate candidate and current Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) recently compared his opponent Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to a dog in remarks he made at a campaign fundraiser. “She goes to Washington, D.C., it’s a little bit like one of those dogs, you know ‘fetch,'” Akin said. “She goes to Washington, D.C., and get all of these taxes and red tape and bureaucracy and executive orders and agencies and she brings all of this stuff and dumps it on us in Missouri.” To hear his comments in full you can watch the video here. Akin already faced nationwide criticism in August after sparking controversy by claiming that “legitimate rape” does not usually lead to pregnancy. Akin has been endorsed by right wing staunch women’s rights opponent Phyllis Schlafly, who stood to the right of Todd Akin at his press conference in September when he announced he will stay in his race against incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill. Akin had faced pressure to drop out of the race due to his “legitimate rape” comment. Many Republicans, including Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), and four former Missouri Senators, urged Akin to step down from the race.