Post-Election News Rundown

hangers-croppedIt would be an understatement to simply say we’re all reeling from last week’s election.

Ironically, in a nation where only 1.2 percent of the population are actual “real Americans” who are natives to this country, a swath of angry, non-native voters, with the intention of “taking their country back” (from whom is still a mystery) chose to pull the proverbial lever for a self-serving, authoritarian, demagogic, misogynistic, race-baiting, ego-maniacal, predatory, pathological liar.


Thanks to the 46,000 (and counting!) folks donating to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence’s name.


The fact that hate speech and fear-mongering triumphed is truly frightening and demoralizing.

Most disappointing to many of us is the stunning betrayal we are realizing has been perpetrated by white female voters — 53 percent of whom voted for Donald Trump. #InsertFrownyFaceEmojiHere

Sorry to shatter your dream of a sisterhood! White ladies decided not to support a woman who has a long and storied history of advocating for children, affordable health care, equal pay, family leave, and women’s health and reproductive rights. Sadly, a majority of white women proved they would rather cast a vote for an openly cruel and vindictive man who doesn’t care about consent or gender equality, and publicly assigns and strips women of their value and humanity solely based on their appearance, and bullies female journalists and other women in the public sphere for his own entertainment.

Oh, and he blatantly and outlandishly lies about abortion. A procedure that one in three women has undergone.

Fairly certainly from a statistical standpoint, many of them were Trump voters.

I guess his statement that women who have abortions should be “punished” didn’t bother them.

In other harrowing news: Continue reading

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: Finally, Facts Matter

Tex-Supremes BlogOn Monday, June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court decided that Texas HB2 was unconstitutional, eliminating requirements for Texas doctors to have hospital admitting privileges near their clinics and for abortion clinics to become surgical facilities. Many fine summaries of this landmark decision popped up within hours of the decision. See Planned Parenthood’s press release and “The Court once again makes the ‘undue-burden’ test a referendum on the facts” on SCOTUS Blog.


On Monday, the Supreme Court demanded that laws be supported by facts.


What struck me most about the majority opinions written by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg was the lack of assertion and conjecture so often found in the court’s previous abortion case decisions. Recall Justice Kennedy’s 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart opinion upholding Congress’ Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003: “We find no reliable data” that abortion causes women emotional harm, but we find it nonetheless “self-evident” and “unexceptional to conclude” that “some women” who choose to terminate their pregnancies suffer “regret,” “severe depression,” “loss of esteem,” and other ills. “Some women”? Did we really uphold a law based upon this kind of neo-paternalistic, fuzzy thinking?

Not this time out. The Supreme Court put future litigants on notice: Facts matter, science matters, logic matters, common-sense inference matters. Unsupported assertions? Nah. Consultants parading as scientists? Not so much. In workmanlike fashion, dealing with abortion in a frank and unapologetic way, the majority read into law 15 separate District Court findings of fact gleaned from stipulations, depositions, and testimony. Further, the court chastised Texas for “attempting to label an opposing expert witness, Doctor Grossman, as irresponsible.” Breyer writes, “making a hypothesis — and then attempting to verify that hypothesis with further studies, as Dr. Grossman did — is not irresponsible. It is an essential element of the scientific method. The District Court’s decision to credit Dr. Grossman’s testimony was sound, particularly given that Texas provided no credible experts to rebut it.” Wow — The Supremes defend the scientific method. Color me happy.  Continue reading

Reproductive Justice?

President Bill Clinton stands by as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sworn in as associate Supreme Court Justice in 1993

President Bill Clinton stands by as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sworn in as associate Supreme Court justice in 1993

When Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, it was the death of more than just one man. For the first time in 20 years, the fairly reliable conservative tilt of the Supreme Court vanished. Now there were four generally liberal justices, three remaining consistently conservative justices, and Anthony Kennedy, a moderate who, though usually conservative, could move to the left, especially on social issues, as we saw in his eloquent opinion in support of same-sex marriage. If Kennedy voted with the conservatives, it would result in a tie, not a 5-4 decision. In case of a tied vote on the Supreme Court, the lower court ruling holds, and if there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, we continue with different law in different parts of the country.

Or the court could order a rehearing of a case once a new justice is seated.


The makeup of the Supreme Court is a glaring example of how much is at stake in presidential elections.


The political wheels started turning immediately. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell almost immediately announced that Scalia’s seat should be filled after “the American people” weigh in during the presidential election — Republicans always seem to forget that the American people have already weighed in twice by making Barack Obama president. This categorical rejection of any Obama nominee, no matter who, is unprecedented. Scalia’s seat was apparently sacred, and could only fairly be filled by a Republican appointee. McConnell does not seem to consider that the next president might also be a Democrat.

The change in the balance of the court was apparent in the first of two cases concerning reproductive health that were scheduled to be heard this month. (The second case, Zubik v. Burwell, will be argued on March 23.) At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston analyzed the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. It was always clear that the outcome would hinge on Justice Kennedy, and, before Scalia’s death, that in all likelihood the Texas law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical clinic requirements, would be upheld. Continue reading

Sniping, Not Debating: The Center for Medical Progress Videos

The following guest post comes to us via a Planned Parenthood Arizona volunteer.

health care providersI watched or read the first few full-length videos and transcripts posted by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) beginning July 25, 2015. No doubt, coming weeks will bring more videos, but I would be surprised if they stray from themes of this first batch. In a nutshell, the heavily edited videos assert that uncompassionate Planned Parenthood representatives violate laws against collecting and selling fetal tissue for profit, “haggle” over pricing, and discuss abortion procedures and tissue in a distasteful, chilling manner.

I’m pretty weary of (though never surprised by) folks who oppose a woman’s right to make her own child-bearing decisions. Why? In this case, opponents refuse to stand and fight on the merits of their arguments. Instead, they use sniping tactics that trigger emotions and ignore facts.

CMP selected snippets of their hidden-camera videos to concoct a narrative not supported by the unedited videos. Consider these snippets they left out.

Planned Parenthood affiliates help WOMEN donate THEIR fetal tissue for medical research.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s senior director of medical services, spoke of the demand for fetal tissue donation programs:

“Patients will call up, make an appointment, and say, ‘I would like to donate my tissue.’ And the affiliates are really feeling like, ‘Oh, wow, I really need to figure out a way to get this done.’ Because patients are talking about — you know, in general, in health care, a provider is not going to offer a service unless there’s demand. And there is a demand now, I mean, women know that this is something that they can do.”

Continue reading

ACT NOW! Congress to Vote TODAY on 20-Week Abortion Ban

It’s Crunch Time!

Votes on Final Passage of HR 36, the 20-week abortion ban, are expected after 1 p.m. Arizona Time (4 p.m. EST) TODAY!

Please ask your Member of Congress to speak out & vote against HR 36 — the 20-Week Abortion Ban. (Click here to find out what congressional district you live in.)

AZ-01 Ann Kirkpatrick          202-225-3361

AZ-02 Martha McSally          202-225-2542

AZ-03 Raul Grijalva               202-225-2435

AZ-04 Paul Gosar                 202-225-2315

AZ-05 Matt Salmon               202-225-2635

AZ-06 David Schweikert       202-225-2190

AZ-07 Ruben Gallego            202-225-4065

AZ-08  Trent Franks               202-225-4576 (sponsor of HR 36)

AZ-09 Kyrsten Sinema           202-225-9888

Tomorrow: Congress Votes on Abortion

Editor’s Note: The following post was written by Esteban Camarena.

US CongressWithin a week of returning to the Capitol, the new majority of the House of Representatives initiated once more a confrontation against women’s health by introducing legislation that would limit access to the legal and medically safe procedure of terminating a pregnancy. Legislation that is being proposed would place legislative burdens for a woman, if she chooses, to go to a doctor and undergo an abortion 20 weeks after gestation.

In the United States, a great majority of abortions occur before 21 weeks. Those that occur after that time frame are commonly due to severe fetal abnormalities and risks to the life of the mother. Due to this fact, many doctors are opposed to this type of law because it prevents them from providing the best medical care possible to their patients. A majority of doctors recognize that abortion is a very safe medical procedure; in fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 99 percent of women who undergo this procedure do not demonstrate any complication.

The majority of Americans agree that Congress should focus on more pertinent issues. What occurs between a doctor and his or her patient is very personal, and frankly a politician has no business interfering in that relationship. Every woman needs to be able to make her own medical decisions in consultation with her faith, family, and doctor. It is important to protect this right and tell politicians that it not their health, and it is not their decision.

Mañana: El Congreso Vota Sobre el Aborto

Este artículo es por Esteban Camarena.

US CongressA una semana de regresar a la Capital, la nueva mayoría en la Cámara de Representantes inicio otra vez un enfrentamiento contra la salud de la mujer ya que quiere limitar el acceso legal y medicamente sano a la terminación de un embarazo. La ley que se propone pondría limites legislativos para una mujer, si ella lo decide, acudir a un médico y someterse al procedimiento de aborto después de 20 semanas de gestación.

En los Estados Unidos, gran mayoría de abortos ocurren antes de 21 semanas y los casos en que este procedimiento ocurre después de ese tiempo comúnmente involucran anormalidades severas del feto y riesgos a la vida de la madre. Es por eso que muchos doctores se oponen a este tipo de ley ya que imponen barreras no necesarias a proveer el mejor cuidado médico a sus pacientes. Mayoría de doctores reconocen que el aborto es un procedimiento sumamente seguro, de hecho 99 por ciento de mujeres que se someten a este tratamiento no demuestran complicación alguna según el Centro de Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC).

La mayoría de estadounidenses están de acuerdo que el Congreso necesita enfocarse en asuntos más pertinentes. Lo que ocurre entre un doctor y su paciente es algo muy personal y francamente un legislador no tiene ningún negocio en interponerse en esa relación. Cada mujer necesita poder hacer decisiones medicas en consulta de su fe, su familia, y su doctor. Es importante proteger este derecho y decirle a los políticos que no es su salud y no es su decisión.