<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Eleanor Bader's blog</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/eleanor-bader"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/1429/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/1429/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2008-04-15T12:41:10+00:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>TRAPping Abortion Providers</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/05/06/trapping-abortion-providers" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/05/06/trapping-abortion-providers</id>
    <published>2008-05-05T03:30:00+00:00</published>
    <updated>2008-05-06T15:17:52+00:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Eleanor Bader</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="abortion clinics" />
    <category term="abortion providers" />
    <category term="anti-choice activists" />
    <category term="anti-choice legislation" />
    <category term="TRAP laws" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed.  But anti-choicers won't listen to evidence -- they claim that abortion is unsafe.  And in states across the country, they've managed to pass a host of burdensome regulations, called TRAP laws, on abortion provision that make it nearly impossible for abortion clinics to stay open.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>
Acronyms are rarely perfect, but when it comes to TRAP, short for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, the word says it all.
</p>
<p>
Anti-abortion zealots have long contended that abortion is unsafe and have pushed state legislatures to impose burdensome requirements on providers. These requirements, in effect in nearly half the country, are more stringent than those imposed on other outpatient medical practices.
</p>
<p>
Critics say that the laws are essentially a game of gotcha and have done little to improve patient care or reduce surgical risk. Instead, since abortion is safe--only 0.3 percent of abortion patients require hospitalization for post-operative complications--they argue that the laws have less to do with protecting women's health and more to do with limiting reproductive choices. Statistics from the Guttmacher Institute bear this out: The number of abortion providers in the U.S. dropped from 2900 in 1982 to 1787 in 2005, at least in part because of TRAP laws.
</p>
<p>
&quot;The anti's strategy has been to allow abortion to remain legal, but to make it unavailable,&quot; says Bonnie Scott Jones, Deputy Director of Domestic Programs at the New York-based Center for <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/133"><acronym title="Reproductive Rights: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Rights">Reproductive Rights</acronym></a>. &quot;Their goal is to make abortion so difficult to obtain it's not really an option. They've also worked to make it more difficult to be an abortion provider than any other kind of doctor. TRAP laws work as a disincentive to becoming part of, or remaining in, the abortion field.&quot;
</p>
<p>
The laws fall into three categories: Licensing, hospitalization, and staffing/patient care. And they run the gamut, from the common-sensical to the illogical and impractical.
</p>
<p>
Take South   Carolina where the law requires six air changes per hour in the recovery room and mandates that there be no grass or weeds near clinics or medical offices where pregnancies are terminated. Arizona requires MDs performing abortions to do gonorrhea and Chlamydia tests on every patient, a practice, providers say, that usurps a physician's ability to judge what measures are necessary. It also drives abortion fees up by $30-$40 per procedure.
</p>
<p>
In Missouri, a presently-enjoined law requires doctors who perform five or more first-trimester terminations a month to convert their offices into ambulatory surgery centers. Among the requirements: Hallways must be six feet wide, doorways must be 44 inches across, and the recovery room must have at least four beds.
</p>
<p>
These restrictions, if upheld, will put Dr. Allen Palmer, the only private physician performing abortions in the Show Me state, out of business. &quot;Dr. Palmer does a full range of gynecological services,&quot; says attorney Bonnie Scott Jones. &quot;He works out of a regular doctor's office. It would cost him in excess of $1 million to turn it into a surgical center. If we lose the case he will retire because abortions are enough of his business that without them he has no practice. This is a man, a family gynecologist, who sees the daughters of patients he treated 20 years ago.&quot;
</p>
<p>
In addition to the law's singling out of abortion providers, and not, say, those performing gastric bypasses or liposuction, Jones is further incensed that there is no grandfather clause built into the Missouri law. &quot;You can't increase hall widths in existing buildings,&quot; she says. &quot;Most laws that change zoning or construction standards only apply to new construction or massive renovations and wave in facilities that already exist. Laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act don't apply retroactively.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Texas is an example of what happens without grandfathering protections. When TRAP laws were passed to require clinics performing abortions after 16 weeks to become ambulatory surgery centers, the availability of care plummeted. &quot;In 2003 there were more than 20 providers doing abortions at or after 16 weeks,&quot; Jones reports. &quot;After the law took effect in 2004 there were none.&quot; While the number of licensed second trimester providers has begun to creep up -- Jones says there were four in 2007 -- in a state the size of Texas the unmet need is likely enormous.
</p>
<p>
TRAP laws have also impacted the way Diane Derzis, owner of New Woman All Women Health Care -- a Birmingham,  Alabama, clinic that was bombed by Eric Robert Rudolph in 1998 -- does business. After a nurse at Birmingham's Summit Medical Center erred in determining the gestational age of a fetus in 2006, newly-passed TRAP laws gave the state greater power to regulate abortion. Although Summit was subsequently closed, Health inspectors increased surveillance of the state's six remaining providers. &quot;We had investigators come to the clinic four times in 2007,&quot; Derzis says. &quot;All visits are unannounced and they always barge in when patients are inside. They take charts out of the clinic and copy them, which they have an absolute right, under the law, to do.&quot;
</p>
<p>
You pick your battles, Derzis shrugs. Nonetheless, she becomes irate when she speaks about inspectors observing abortions. &quot;We've had to ask patients, ‘Do you have a problem with a Department of Health observer in the OR?' Most say ‘no,' but I still don't think inspectors have any business in surgical procedure rooms.&quot;
</p>
<p>
June Ayers, owner and Director of <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/131"><acronym title="Reproductive Health: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Health">Reproductive Health</acronym></a> services in Montgomery has, like Derzis, been on the receiving end of the Alabama Health Department's probing. &quot;For about five years we had a verbal agreement with an emergency physician,&quot; she begins. &quot;When the Health Department called him he said he could no longer do back-up for us because he did not want to be bothered by the Health Department. The inspectors closed us down immediately, suspending our license for six weeks. We'd never had a deficiency before in 28 years of operation. I made arrangements with another physician to provide back-up within two weeks but they refused to re-open the clinic. It wasn't just that we couldn't do abortions. We couldn't do pregnancy tests, give out contraceptives, or even do paperwork. We're a small clinic, seeing about 1200 women a year. From a clinical and monetary standpoint, the whole thing was a nightmare.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Worse, at meetings to discuss re-opening, the state attorney told Ayers that since new regulations were about to be promulgated she needed to agree, in advance, that RHS would abide by them. If Ayers refused she understood that the clinic would remain shuttered.
</p>
<p>
&quot;The new standards of care require our doctors to be certified by a disinterested physician saying that he or she is qualified to perform abortions,&quot; Ayers says. &quot;These are already licensed MDs who have to find someone to stick his or her neck out and do this unnecessary paperwork once a year.&quot;
</p>
<p>
In addition, a &quot;Did You Know?&quot; bill presently requires Alabama clinics to provide a resource guide to all abortion patients. The booklet lists services for women, children and families, including information about adoption and abortion alternatives. &quot;The law says that the only people who can hand the brochure to patients are licensed psychologists, sociologists, RNs, or MDs. My counselor, who has worked at the clinic for 10 years, is not qualified to distribute it,&quot; says an exasperated Ayers.
</p>
<p>
&quot;These laws are supposed to provide a higher standard of care,&quot; she continues. &quot;But that's not what happens. TRAP laws do not elevate care or help patients. They're punitive, forcing clinics to provide services under adverse conditions. It's why Alabama is down from 10 clinics to six. When it becomes too difficult to provide services, clinics close.&quot;
</p>
<p>
That, says CRR's Bonnie Scott Jones, is the point. Since the 1992 Supreme Court decision in <em>Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,</em> which weakened the test of unconstitutionality for abortion law to &quot;undue burden,&quot; &quot;the antis have been testing the limits to see how onerous regulations can be and still be upheld by the courts.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Onerous, of course, is subjective, but clinicians and pro-choice activists call TRAP regulations unnecessary, even galling. &quot;There was a horrific death of an abortion patient in Arizona in 1998, a clear example of criminal medical malpractice,&quot; Jones says. &quot;But like in Alabama, because the incident was abortion related, it provided the impetus to pass really bad TRAP laws. Malpractice happens and it always needs to be addressed, but TRAP laws just add fuel to the fire of anti-abortion activism.&quot;
</p>
<p>
The National Abortion Federation, a professional association for providers, agrees. According to their website, &quot;TRAP bills stigmatize and burden abortion providers...By implying that abortion clinics are dangerous and in need of special regulation, such bills promote an unfounded fear that abortion is unsafe. Abortion has an outstanding safety record. These regulations create a burden for small outpatient clinics.&quot;
</p>
<p>
You can almost hear the antis cheering.
</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>License to Lie</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/04/15/license-to-lie" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/04/15/license-to-lie</id>
    <published>2008-04-15T13:48:21+00:00</published>
    <updated>2008-04-15T12:41:10+00:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Eleanor Bader</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="adoption" />
    <category term="anti-choice activists" />
    <category term="Choose Life license plates" />
    <category term="CPCs" />
    <category term="crisis pregnancy centers" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Popular "Choose Life" license plates raise millions for crisis pregnancy centers and other anti-choice organizations. And in Florida, the funds can only be given to women who are willing to give their children up for adoption.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>According to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the first vanity plate was produced in 1931 at the request of a Pennsylvania motorist who wanted his initials on the tag. In the 77 years since, specialized plates have become big business, with local governments and advocacy groups selling them to benefit causes from state parks, space exploration, and violence prevention to public education and endangered wildlife. </p>
<p>By the mid-1990&#39;s anti-abortion activists wanted in on the trend. Randy Harris, a virulently anti-choice county commissioner from Ocala, Florida, is considered the mastermind of the idea to have state DMVs collect funds to promote adoption over abortion. His plan was simple -- have the state agency sell &quot;Choose Life&quot; tags for $22 above the regular cost of a license plate. The extra money would then go to non-profit adoption agencies, so-called <a href="/blog/tag/cpcs">Crisis Pregnancy Centers</a>, and maternity homes with the sole purpose of encouraging the unhappily pregnant to put their progeny up for adoption. </p>
<p>Harris galvanized supporters by arguing that since only one percent of women deemed &quot;abortion vulnerable&quot; by CPCs gave their babies to adoptive families, more needed to be done to promote this option. And doing more, he reasoned, required money for the medical care, shelter, food and living expenses of those giving birth. How simple it would be, he cajoled, if people bought vanity tags to promote the cause. </p>
<p>Harris&#39; three-year campaign was victorious and Florida&#39;s then-governor, Jeb Bush, authorized the plates in 1999. By 2000 bright yellow tags with a childlike drawing of a boy and girl -- the female is distinguished by longer hair and a red bow atop her head -- and a Choose Life message were selling like hotcakes. By the end of 2007, the state had raised $5.5 million and the idea of selling anti-abortion tags had spread to 17 states; in less than eight years, more than $8.4 million was collected for anti-abortion adoption centers and explicitly Christian CPCs across the country.  </p>
<p>No comparable pro-choice plates exist -- which clearly pleases anti-abortionists. At the same time, Florida anti-choicers acknowledge that the tags have not been as effective in promoting adoption as Harris originally expected. While figures for the number of babies placed for adoption pre-and-post tags are unavailable, Russ Amerling, Publicity Coordinator of Choose Life, Inc., a national network established to promote the plates and help anti-abortion activists bring them to their states, admits that the program has hit numerous bureaucratic roadblocks. </p>
<p>&quot;The problem,&quot; Amerling begins, &quot;is not the exclusive focus on adoption; it&#39;s the distribution of funds.&quot; Indeed, money collected by the DMV has been accumulating far faster than it is being spent. &quot;In Marion County, we get $30,000 a year which is distributed to qualified agencies that promote, support or enhance adoption services,&quot; Amerling continues. &quot;There is no paperwork, no contract signing. The county auditor goes in every year and confirms that the money is being used in accordance with the statute. That&#39;s it. In other counties it&#39;s not like that. Many county commissioners don&#39;t distribute the money because there is so much red tape that agencies don&#39;t even apply for it. It&#39;s too burdensome. The funds are not being spent because barriers are being erected that keep it from being spent.&quot;</p>
<p>This means that the money raised by Florida&#39;s sale of Choose Life license plates isn&#39;t doing what its promoters say it is -- helping women place their babies with adoptive families. Instead, the funds -- approximately $200,000 according to news-press.com -- languish in state bank accounts. </p>
<p>Sydna Masse, a former <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/115"><acronym title="Focus on the Family: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Focus on the Family">Focus on the Family</acronym></a> staffer and founder of the anti-abortion counseling group, Ramah International, says that this outcome was predictable. Unlike Amerling, who champions Florida&#39;s adoption-only bent, Masse believes that &quot;the state made eligibility for funding too restrictive. It&#39;s not for any woman choosing life. It&#39;s only for women choosing adoption.&quot; Since most women coming into a CPC want to keep their babies or have an abortion -- not give them away -- she believes that agencies that might be eligible for funding see no point in applying since they know they&#39;ll rarely be able to use it. She is also perplexed by Choose Life Inc.&#39;s refusal to push for a loosening of the rules. At the same time, she is heartened that anti-abortionists in other states have learned from Florida&#39;s errors. </p>
<p>Masse hails Mississippi as the country&#39;s most successful license tag program. Terri Herring of the Pro-Life America Network (PLAN) for Mississippi says that her group used Florida as a model but wanted to fund more than just adoption. While the 33 agencies currently funded by tag revenue -- over $1 million has been raised since 2002 -- encourage women to relinquish their babies, they also fund services for those who want to keep their offspring. </p>
<p>Janet Thomas of Choose Life, Mississippi oversees the quarterly distribution of funds to qualifying groups and says that in the fourth quarter of 2007 grants ranged from a low of $320 to $4,575. This money was used to promote adoption, says Thomas, &quot;as well as for women who needed pampers and baby clothes. It was also used for pregnancy tests, sonograms, or whatever else a pregnancy center wanted to use it for including outreach on abstinence or that type of thing.&quot; </p>
<p>Thanks to a sophisticated &quot;License to Live&quot; ad campaign on television and in statewide print media, Mississippi tag sales remain brisk. </p>
<p>For their part, pro-choice legal challenges to the Choose Life tags -- including a 2005 Supreme Court petition that the Court rejected -- have been largely unsuccessful. Although a 2004 Circuit Court decision found that having a Choose Life tag violated the First Amendment unless pro-choice tags were available, other Circuit Courts have sided with the antis. An Oklahoma case, brought by the Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Education Fund (ORC), will be argued and decided in late 2008. Arguments that money is going to overtly religious groups with an overtly religious agenda have similarly fallen flat. </p>
<p>Janet Crepps, Deputy Director of Domestic Legal Programs at the Center for <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/133"><acronym title="Reproductive Rights: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Rights">Reproductive Rights</acronym></a>, is representing ORC and argues that the tags are objectionable on multiple levels. First, she says, is the issue of the state favoring one political viewpoint over another. &quot;If they&#39;re going to give anyone access to the license plate forum, they should give access to all viewpoints.&quot; </p>
<p>Then there&#39;s the question of funding, and where the money collected by the state actually goes. &quot;Crisis Pregnancy Centers have a history of providing women with biased information, and in some instances, misleading women about their pregnancy choices,&quot; Crepps continues. &quot;No public funds should go to CPCs for any reason. It&#39;s a misuse of public money to fund organizations that are both religious and political. It&#39;s particularly outrageous that states give money to CPCs when these same states often refuse to provide <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/137"><acronym title="Comprehensive Sex Education: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Comprehensive Sex Education">comprehensive sex education</acronym></a> or to provide adequate funding for <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">family planning</acronym></a> services.&quot; </p>
<p>These criticisms don&#39;t faze Russ Amerling or his Choose Life, Inc. colleagues. &quot;We&#39;ve learned from Florida and have now drafted a model bill,&quot; he says. &quot;The ideal is to send money collected by the sale of tags directly to a non-profit Choose Life group, sidestepping county government altogether. That agency can then distribute funds to help abortion-vulnerable women choose adoption.&quot; </p>
<p>Numerous states have rejected the Choose Life tags and even in states where they&#39;ve been approved, sales are often slow. Connecticut, for example, has sold only 550; Hawaii just 672; and Indiana 804. But the issue isn&#39;t going away any time soon: bills to authorize their sale are pending in six state legislatures and the issue is being litigated in five others. </p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
