TcMedicine

Archive for May 9th, 2008

The Mexico Supreme Court on Friday announced that it has accepted a petition, filed by the National Human Right’s Commission, to review the constitutionality of a Mexico City law that allows pregnant women to obtain an abortion during the first three months’ gestation, the Los Angeles Times reports (Tobar, Los Angeles Times, 5/29).

Lawmakers from the Party of the Democratic Revolution in March in the Mexico City Legislature proposed allowing abortions during the first three months of pregnancy in the city, and lawmakers approved the measure in April. City Health Secretary Manuel Mondragon said the law requires that women seeking abortions prove they are residents of the city except in cases of medical emergency. He also said that each facility would be able to perform about seven abortions daily. Girls younger than age 18 will need parental consent to obtain an abortion. The law allows gynecologists who have moral objections to refrain from performing abortions (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/27).

NHRC, along with the attorney general’s office, on Friday filed the petition, saying that the law violates a constitutional clause guaranteeing the right to life and that city legislators do not have the authority to approve measures related to health, the AP/International Herald Tribune reports (Grillo, AP/International Herald Tribune, 5/28). The court has not scheduled a date to hear the case, according to the Times. The votes of eight of the court’s 11 justices are required to overturn a law (Los Angeles Times, 5/29). The Democratic Revolutionary Party called on supporters of the law to block federal government offices later this week, the AP/Herald Tribune reports. “It’s a political maneuver to satisfy a certain public opinion over this law,” Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard said, adding, “But legally, it’s got no base” (AP/International Herald Tribune, 5/28). Meanwhile, opponents of the law have said they will protest in front of city hospitals and encourage physicians to be “conscientious objectors,” who will not perform abortions, the Times reports.

700 Women Request Abortions After Passage of Law
About 700 women have requested abortions at city public hospitals since legislators passed the law, and hundreds more women have received abortions at private clinics, government officials and abortion-rights groups said recently, the Times reports. As of Wednesday, Mexico City physicians had performed 215 abortions, and 292 women had appointments for the procedure, officials said. The remaining women are awaiting appointments, and 6% of the requests were made by minors, according to officials. “There has not been a huge demand, like many people supposed,” Mondragon told city legislators at a hearing last week, adding that abortion opponents “thought that once abortion was legalized, everyone would get one. That hasn’t been the case” (Los Angeles Times, 5/29).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

George Annas, co-chair of the Health Rights and Bioethics Committee of the American Bar Association’s Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section, in the May 24 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine examined the Supreme Court decision last month to uphold a ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortion, as well as earlier Supreme Court decisions that shaped U.S. policies related to abortion. According to Annas, the Supreme Court by the 1980s had established a pattern of striking down regulations that “significantly burdened a woman’s decision” to have an abortion; that “treated abortion differently from other similar medical or surgical procedures”; that “interfered” with the judgment of physicians; or were “stricter than accepted medical standards.”

The “major change” in last month’s decision from previous Supreme Court decisions is that the opinion “brings … the new willingness of Congress and the court to disregard the health of pregnant women and the medical judgment of their physicians,” Annas writes. He adds that the decision “ignores or marginalizes long-standing principles of constitutional law” and “substitut[es] the personal morality” of the five justices who issued the majority decision. Physicians who are “disturbed or dismayed” by the decision could seek an amendment to the law to allow an exception to protect a woman’s health or become “conscientious objectors,” who would perform the procedure if necessary to protect a woman’s life, according to Annas. He adds that the latter is a “viable option” only if physicians have support of medical groups, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the legal profession (Annas, NJEM, 5/24).

Perspective Pieces
NEJM on Thursday also published two perspective pieces responding to the Supreme Court’s decision. Summaries appear below.

• R. Alta Charo: The court in its decision “alter[ed]” the “balance” that access to abortion cannot impose an “undue burden” on women, Charo — a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin Madison and a member of the board of directors at the Guttmacher Institute — writes in a perspective piece. The decision also “holds that requiring women” to undergo alternative abortion procedures when the banned procedure is the safest option is “neither an undue burden … nor a dereliction of the state’s duty to guard women’s health and personal autonomy,” Charo adds. According to Charo, the “greatest uncertainty” in the decision is the “continued viability” of a woman’s right to abortion “in all but imminently life-threatening situations” (Charo, NEJM, 5/24).
  
  
• Michael Greene: U.S. physicians’ “lack of confidence” that the judicial system would “treat them fairly” if they provided care that violated the law — “even if they had acted in good faith and in the patient’s best interest” — has “cast a pall over those who practice reproductive medicine,” Greene — an associate editor of NEJM, an ob-gyn and reproductive biology professor at Harvard Medical School and director of obstetrics at Massachusetts General Hospital — writes in a perspective piece. According to Greene, the “last thing” a physician “needs is to have to worry” that performing a second-trimester surgical abortion “could potentially evolve into a criminal act.” Greene adds, “Lacking confidence in the judicial system, physicians may choose to avoid performing” such abortions, “thus restricting access to them, perhaps even if the mother’s life is in jeopardy” (Greene, NEJM, 5/24).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The following highlights recent news of state actions on abortion-related legislation.

• Kansas: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) on Monday vetoed a provision of a bill (SB 357) that would have required physicians who perform late-term abortions to provide the state with information about the women undergoing the procedure, the AP/Wichita Eagle reports. The provision also would have directed the Department of Health and Environment to summarize data it received from doctors on the reasons for performing the procedure and to include them in annual reports. The provision was included in a spending measure, and Sebelius used her power to veto individual items in such bills, the AP/Eagle reports (Hanna, AP/Wichita Eagle, 5/21). Sebelius in her veto message said, “The questions required by this proviso are open-ended and request detailed information on a patient’s medical condition,” adding that the provision could open a patient’s private medical record to public viewing. Rep. Lance Kinzer (R), who sponsored the measure, said that the provision “doesn’t require anyone to know the particular medical condition that any woman is suffering from” (Sullinger, Kansas City Star, 5/21). The Senate on Tuesday voted 19-10 with four abstentions and seven senators absent in a failed attempt to override the veto, the Wichita Eagle reports. According to the Eagle, 27 votes are needed to override a veto in the Senate (Lefler, Wichita Eagle, 5/23).
  
  
• Missouri: The Senate on Friday approved a measure (SB 370) that would designate facilities performing second- or third-trimester abortions or more than five first-trimester abortions each month as “ambulatory surgical centers,” the Jefferson City News Tribune reports (Jefferson City News Tribune, 5/19). Clinics with that designation are subject to increased regulation from the state Department of Health and Senior Services. The measure also would give public school districts the option of teaching an abstinence-only sex education course. School districts are required to include information about contraception in sex education classes under current law (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/30). Gov. Matt Blunt (R), who is expected to sign the bill, said that the measure also would prevent organizations that provide abortions from teaching sex education in state classrooms (Jefferson City News Tribune, 5/19).
  
  
• Oklahoma: The Senate last week voted 34-14 to approve a measure that would ban the use of state or federal funds to perform abortions, the AP/Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reports (Jenkins, AP/Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise, 5/16). The House approved the measure last week. Gov. Brad Henry (D) last month vetoed a similar bill (SB 714) that would have banned the use of state or federal funds to perform abortions except for procedures to save the lives of pregnant women. The vetoed legislation also would have barred using state-supported hospitals, clinics and equipment to perform abortions. In addition, the bill would have tightened the bypass provision of the state’s informed consent law by changing the definition of “medical emergency,” and it would make all state employees ineligible to perform an abortion except to save the life of the woman. The Senate failed to override the veto by one vote. The new bill allows physicians more rights to discuss the procedure with the pregnant woman. Public hospitals still would be allowed to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of pregnant women, according to supporters of the measure (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 5/16). Some Senate Democrats during the debate predicted that Henry will sign the new legislation. Paul Sund, a spokesperson for Henry, has said the governor “will withhold judgment until [he can] review the changes in the final bill” (AP/Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise, 5/16).
  
  
• South Carolina: The Senate last week by voice vote approved an amended version of a bill (S 84) that would allow but not require a pregnant woman seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound image of her fetus, AP/Forbes reports (Adcox, AP/Forbes, 5/16). The measure does not include a requirement in a House-approved bill (H 3355) that says women must view the ultrasound image before the procedure. However, the Senate measure requires ultrasounds if the doctor thinks the woman is at 14 weeks’ gestation or more. Under the Senate bill, if a woman chooses to view the ultrasound, a doctor must give a medical description of the image. The measure also requires women to be given a list of all facilities that provide ultrasounds at no cost (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/24). In addition, women would be required to sign a form stating they were given the opportunity to view an ultrasound. The bill now moves to the House for consideration. A spokesperson for Gov. Mark Sanford (R) said that although the governor prefers the House version, he would accept the Senate measure (AP/Forbes, 5/16).

  “Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

  Posted in Abortion | No Comments » | Read more..

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition last month of an argument advanced by some abortion-rights opponents that the “interests of the pregnant woman and the fetus are … the same” has “galvanized” antiabortion groups and has “se[t] the stage for an intensifying battle over new abortion restrictions in the states,” the New York Times reports.

According to the Times, the “political struggle” over abortion often has been framed as a “starkly binary choice” between the “interest of the woman,” advocated by abortion-rights supporters, versus the “interest of the fetus,” advocated by abortion-rights opponents. However, some groups — such as the Justice Foundation, National Right to Life Committee and Feminists for Life — in the last decade have been building an argument that abortion is not in the “best interest” of the woman and that women are often “misled or ill-informed” about the risks related to the procedure.

According to the Times, many abortion-rights supporters and opponents viewed part of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in a ruling that upheld a federal law (S 3) banning so-called “partial-birth” abortion as an “invitation from a newly conservative court to pass tough new counseling and informed consent laws intended for women seeking abortions.”

Abortion-rights supporters say that the focus on women by abortion-rights opponents “is motivated by ideology, not women’s health,” the Times reports. “Informed consent is really a misleading way to characterize it,” Roger Evans, senior director of public policy litigation and law for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said, adding, “To me, what we’ll see is an increasing attempt to push a state’s ideology into a doctor-patient relationship to force doctors to communicate more and more of the state’s viewpoint.”

Wanda Franz, president of NRLC, said, “We think of ourselves as very pro-woman,” adding, “We believe that when you help the woman, you help the baby” (Toner, New York Times, 5/22).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The Salem Women’s Clinic in Salem, Ore., earlier this month filed a federal antitrust lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., against Salem Hospital alleging that the hospital is using its monopoly in the local health care system to drive the clinic out of business, the Salem Statesman Journal reports. In the suit, the clinic claims that hospital officials are restricting the clinics midwives from practicing by removing access to backup physicians, who are required to be present in case a medical emergency occurs during labor, according to the Statesman Journal.

The suit seeks an emergency injunction to reinstate hospital privileges for Elizebeth Harmon, director of the clinic, until an appeals hearing takes place. The hospital on Jan. 25 sent a letter to Harmon that said her privileges were suspended because she had violated hospital requirements for reappointment to the medical staff. The letter also cited “concerns regarding quality of patient care, behavioral issues and interpersonal relationships with members of the health care team” as reasons for the suspension. Harmon has requested an appeal hearing with the hospital to have her privileges reinstated, but a hearing has not been granted, according to the Statesman Journal.

According to the Statesman Journal, the clinic’s midwives have continued to practice because physicians from the hospital’s in-house obstetric group have provided backup. However, the obstetricians on April 23 told hospital officials that after the end of May they will no longer provide backup to clinic midwives because the additional patient load is placing too much strain on their practice. Sherryll Johnson Hoar, a spokesperson for the hospital, said the hospital will bring in temporary physicians to provide backup.

Harmon in the lawsuit also alleges that the hospital has refused to grant privileges to three new physicians hired by the clinic to take on some of her patients and alleviate the burden on Kimberly Eltzroth, the clinic’s other physician with privileges. Eltzroth has said she will resign on June 24 because of the additional patient load resulting from Harmon’s suspension.

The clinic, which is the only provider of midwife services at the hospital, delivers about 70 infants annually, according to the Statesman Journal. According to the suit, the clinic could close late next month if the midwives are not given access to backup physicians. Johnson Hoar said the hospital is “surprised” by the lawsuit, adding that it will take steps to ensure backup physicians are provided (Thompson, Salem Statesman Journal, 5/18).

Antiabortion Groups Concerned That Language in Bill Would Allow Midwives, Nurses To Perform Abortions
In related news, some antiabortion groups, including Missouri Right to Life and the Missouri Catholic Conference, have expressed concern over language in a bill (HB 818) passed last week by the state House that they say could be interpreted as allowing any certified health professional, including nurses and midwives, to perform abortions, the AP/Columbian Missourian reports (Lieb, AP/Columbian Missourian, 5/17). A provision of the bill would allow any person holding “ministerial or tocological certification” to provide pregnancy-related services (Wagar, Kansas City Star, 5/17).

According to the AP/Missourian, lawmakers did not realize that state Sen. John Loudon (R), who opposes abortion rights, had added the language to the bill until after it had passed, and they are now trying to pass a second bill that omits the language before the end of the legislative session. Loudon said that he does not think his amendment would allow people who are not physicians to perform abortions but added that he would support an amendment to clarify the language (AP/Columbian Missourian, 5/17). According to the Star, the House has added a provision to the other bill that states that only a physician can perform an abortion, even if another law states that other health care providers, such as nurses or midwives, can provide pregnancy-related care (Kansas City Star, 5/17).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, on Wednesday said he would have to think “long and hard” before he would consider running with a candidate who supports abortion rights, the AP/Guardian reports. Huckabee, who opposes abortion rights, said abortion is a “critical” issue, adding that the “sanctity of life is not just some peripheral political position” (Smith, AP/Guardian, 5/16). He also said that the current debate about abortion rights among the Republican candidates is a “healthy thing for [the Republican] party” (Daniels, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 5/17).

New York Times Examines New York Abortion, Adoption Numbers During Giuliani Administration
The New York Times on Thursday examined former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s claim that abortions in New York City decreased by 16% and adoptions increased by 133% during his administration. Giuliani, who also is running for the Republican presidential nomination, made the statement at the Republicans’ second televised debate on Tuesday. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of abortions decreased 18% during Giuliani’s administration. The Times reports that the increase in adoptions Giuliani referred to “resulted largely from [his] response” to a “foster care crisis” in the city. According to the Times, “little if anything” from public records indicate Giuliani “was promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion.” The changes in adoption and abortion numbers mirrored national trends, the Times reports. Giuliani during his tenure as mayor supported abortion rights and used city funding to provide abortion and contraception services to low-income women. Increased access to contraceptives for low-income women and the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, which offered incentives to cities with adoption programs, likely contributed to the changes, the Times reports (Seelye, New York Times, 5/17).

Times Examines Focus of Giuliani Campaign
The Times on Thursday also examined the “strategic gamble” in Giuliani’s campaign: that his position on national security could override his positions on abortion rights and other social issues in the Republican primaries. According to the Times, Giuliani’s aides said they are not certain whether circumstances have “changed enough, in the world and in the party, to allow national security to overrule social concerns.” However, a “divided and demoralized” Republican base might mean that “moderate Republicans will be critical” in determining the Republican nominee, the Times reports (Nagourney, New York Times, 5/17). In related news, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson in an WorldNetDaily online column released on Thursday said he said he “cannot, and will not” vote for Giuliani in 2008, Reuters reports (Reuters, 5/17). Dobson described the candidate as an “unapologetic” supporter of abortion rights, the Washington Post reports (Goldfarb, Washington Post, 5/18). According to the AP/Albany Times Union, Dobson earlier this year said he would not support Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who also is running for the Republican presidential nomination, because of McCain’s opposition to a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage (Sidoti, AP/Albany Times Union, 5/18).

Broadcast Coverage

• KCRW’s “To the Point”: The program on Wednesday included a discussion about the second Republican presidential debate and how abortion rights, human embryonic stem cell research and other issues could impact voters in the Republican primary. Guests on the program included Karen Tumulty, a national political correspondent for Time magazine; Dan Gilgoff, a senior editor of U.S. News & World Report; Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; and Christopher Barron, a Republican political consultant (Olney, “To the Point,” KCRW, 5/16). Audio of the segment is available online.
  
  
• NPR’s “All Things Considered”: The program on Thursday reported on Giuliani’s statements about abortion at a town hall meeting at the College of Charleston. The segment includes comments from Giuliani and South Carolina residents (Liasson, “All Things Considered,” NPR, 5/17). Audio of the segment is available online.
  
  
• NPR’s “Day to Day”: The program on Wednesday reported on a poll that found that half of Republican voters are unaware of their party’s candidates’ views on abortion. The segment includes comments from Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University; Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report; and Jennifer Duffy, managing editor of The Cook Political Report (Pesca, “Day to Day,” NPR, 5/16). Audio of the segment is available online.
  

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Several newspapers recently published editorials and opinion pieces about abortion-rights statements by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), both candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. Giuliani during the first Republican debate earlier this month said he would not be upset if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that barred state abortion bans, but later he endorsed abortion rights. “It would be OK to repeal” Roe, Giuliani said, adding, “Or it would be OK also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as a precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.” Giuliani also said that he supports public financing of abortion for poor women in New York state but added that “people can come to a different decision.”

Romney during the debate discussed his shift from supporting abortion rights during his run for governor of Massachusetts to becoming an abortion-rights opponent. “I’ve always been personally pro-life, but for me there was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision,” Romney said. He added that it was the debate over cloning in his state that influenced him to change his stance on abortion rights. “I was wrong and changed my mind,” Romney said, adding, “I’m proud of that, and I won’t apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life” (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 5/4). Summaries of the editorials and opinion pieces appear below.

Editorials

• Los Angeles Times: Giuliani “may or may not have helped his presidential campaign by unambiguously identifying himself” as an abortion-rights supporter, but he has “done a service to Republican voters by clarifying his views instead of fudging them for primary season,” a Times editorial says. Giuliani “has drawn a line,” albeit a “blurry” line in some places, and “positioned himself clearly on one side of it,” according to the editorial. Abortion-rights opponents might “not be persuaded by that pitch, but at least Giuliani — quite unlike” Romney and presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — “isn’t vaulting rightward on social issues to pander to the GOP base” (Los Angeles Times, 5/16).
  
  
• New York Daily News: Giuliani’s stance on abortion rights is a “daring thing for a Republican presidential candidate to say out loud, given the conventional wisdom that this is one of the last things a core [Republican] voter wants to hear,” a Daily News editorial says. Giuliani’s “pro-choice heresy has not much alienated blocs beyond the most extreme of the pro-lifers,” according to the editorial. Giuliani currently is “standing close to where Americans at large stand: deeply troubled by abortion but favoring both a woman’s right to choose and reasonable restrictions on the procedure,” the editorial says, concluding that Giuliani is “doing the Republicans a big favor — if only they are wise enough to see it” (New York Daily News, 5/5).

Opinion Pieces

• Dan Gilgoff, Boston Globe: With Giuliani and McCain “staking their independence from Christian conservatives” on some issues and the “true Christian Right” presidential candidates at 1% in the polls, Romney “sees his opening,” Gilgoff, senior editor at U.S. News & World Report, writes in a Globe opinion piece. Romney is “attempting to persuade the Christian Right that he has seen the light on abortion and gay rights,” Gilgoff writes, concluding that “if it is another candidate who winds up winning the Republican nomination, he will need to prove that, when it comes to the Christian Right’s role in presidential politics, the math has changed” (Gilgoff, Boston Globe, 5/8).
  
  
• Cal Thomas, Miami Herald: If Giuliani wants to “split the difference” on the abortion issue — “maintaining choice while reducing the number of abortions” — he could favor legislation that would require ultrasounds be given to women seeking abortions, syndicated columnist Thomas writes in a Herald opinion piece. If Giuliani proposes a plan to “substantially reduce the number of abortions,” it “might cut him some slack with pro-life voters,” according to Thomas (Thomas, Miami Herald, 5/15).
  
  
• Robin Toner, New York Times: With Giuliani as one of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, “the question inevitably arises: … Can a supporter of abortion rights, even one with caveats and qualifications, make it to the top of the Republican Party in 2008?” Times reporter Toner writes in a Times opinion piece. Antiabortion advocates are “confident” that they will “exert [their] power in 2008,” Toner writes, concluding that if Giuliani “endures … he will be bucking an awful lot of history” (Toner, New York Times, 5/11).
  
  
• E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: If Giuliani “sticks with his decision” to support abortion rights, he will “end the free ride his party has enjoyed on an issue that’s supposed to be about morality but has more often been used cynically to harvest votes,” Post columnist Dionne writes in an opinion piece. Giuliani also will “test the seriousness of those who claim that abortion is the decisive issue in the political choices they make,” Dionne writes, concluding that if “leaders of the antiabortion movement don’t oppose Giuliani during the primaries with the same passion they summoned against” 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), it will be “clear that abortion is more an excuse to vote Republican than the foundational issue they claim it to be” (Dionne, Washington Post, 5/15).
  
  
• Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post: The “brouhaha” over Giuliani’s response to a question about Roe in the first Republican presidential debate is an illustration of how “tangled the issue” has become, Post columnist Krauthammer writes in an opinion piece. Abortion is “already so contaminated with legalisms, why not turn the issue into one of simple democracy?” Krauthammer writes. “Let the people decide,” he adds, concluding, “Let them work it out the way everything else in this country is worked out — by political argument and legislative accommodation” (Krauthammer, Washington Post, 5/11).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The following highlights recent news of state actions on abortion- and sex education-related legislation.

• Colorado: Gov. Bill Ritter (D) on Monday signed a bill into law (HB 1292) that requires all but one school district in the state to teach comprehensive sex education courses based on scientific research and include instruction on the health benefits and possible side effects of contraception, the Colorado Springs Gazette reports (Sealover, Colorado Springs Gazette, 5/15). Under the bill, courses still could include discussion of abstinence but must be comprehensive. Schools also could decide not to teach a sex education course. The school district in Center, Colo., would be able to continue teaching its abstinence-only curriculum so as not to lose its federal grants. Some Republicans have said the bill would violate the “local control” principle in the state constitution, which allows each district to decide its own curriculum (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Report, 4/13). “If a school district and a student so choose, this legislation allows educators to help students develop skills that will enable them to make responsible and healthy decisions, including the teaching of abstinence,” Ritter in a statement said, adding, “This legislation also ensures local school districts have control over what programs they choose to offer to their students” (Ritter statement, 5/14).
  
  
• Kansas: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) on Wednesday signed into law a bill (HB 2062) that would change the state’s definition of a “person” to include an “unborn child” from the time of conception and allow prosecutors to charge anyone who attacks a pregnant woman with a separate crime against the fetus, the AP/KSHB-TV reports (AP/KSHB-TV, 5/9). Under previous Kansas law, it was a felony to injure a pregnant woman, but the fetus was not also treated as a victim (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/30). Julie Burkhart, director of the abortion-rights group ProKanDo, said that the measure “will not help pregnant women in Kansas escape the perils of violent behavior.” Sen. Phil Journey (R), who supported the bill, said the law is unlikely to be misused by prosecutors, adding, “It’s intended to be very narrow in its application.” The measure also included other crime-related provisions, the Wichita Eagle reports (Lefler, Wichita Eagle, 5/10).
  
  
• Oklahoma: The House on Monday voted 77-19 to approve a measure that would ban the use of state or federal funds to perform abortions, the AP/KOTV reports. Public hospitals still would be allowed to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of pregnant women, according to supporters of the measure (Talley, AP/KOTV, 5/14). Gov. Brad Henry (D) last month vetoed a similar bill (SB 714) that would have banned the use of state or federal funds to perform abortions except for procedures to save the lives of pregnant women. The vetoed legislation also would have barred using state-supported hospitals, clinics and equipment to perform abortions. In addition, the bill would have tightened the bypass provision of the state’s informed consent law by changing the definition of “medical emergency,” and it would make all state employees ineligible to perform an abortion except to save the life of the woman. The Senate failed to override the veto by one vote (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/24). According to the AP/KOTV, the new bill allows physicians more rights to discuss the procedure with the pregnant woman (AP/KOTV, 5/14).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.