News & Commentary

Each Friday, we’ll bring you updates on the latest civil liberties news from Maine and the nation.

Until recently, when you Googled “abortion clinics,” there was a high likelihood that ads for so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) would appear among the search results. According to research conducted by NARAL Pro-Choice America, ads for CPCs appeared 79% of the time when using Google to find abortion clinics. CPCs use lies and manipulation to discourage individuals from seeking an abortion. Contrary to what their ads imply, CPCs do not offer abortion services and counseling. When you call the center, you may be told that abortion is physically and psychologically damaging. You may also be told that birth control pills cause abortions, and that abortions cause breast cancer. None of this is truthful information. The deception begins even before you call. CPCs use ambiguous ads that prey upon the fear and concern someone facing an unwanted pregnancy might feel. Here are some examples of CPC ads.

The passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973 didn’t just secure women’s constitutional rights to privacy and autonomy in their reproductive health decisions, it also drastically reduced the number of women who die due to complications from illegal abortions. The estimated number of abortions performed in the US has not changed much since the passage of Roe v. Wade. Prior to Roe, it was estimated that approximately 1 million women terminated their pregnancies. In 2008, that number was 1.21 million. In 2011, that number dropped to 1.06 million. These numbers tell us the importance of keeping abortion legal – regardless of legislation, women who find themselves facing an unwanted pregnancy may still attempt to terminate their pregnancies. If abortion isn’t legal, some women will seek out illegal means to end their pregnancies. 

As we witness a state by state erosion of abortion rights, we can clearly see particular patterns of attacks that have emerged. Because the right to safe and legal abortion has been guaranteed by the Constitution, state legislators are unable to ban abortions outright. In the past few years, anti-choice advocates and legislators have sought to circumvent the Constitution by introducing bills that chip away at abortion access. Two weeks ago, I wrote about one type of attack – TRAP laws. While these laws don’t directly ban abortion, they introduce unnecessary procedures and regulations that, in the end, limit the availability of abortion services. 

Tuesday, April 8, was Equal Pay Day. Equal Pay Day represents the number of extra days a woman in the U.S. must work before she is paid the same amount as the average man in the U.S. (in other words, the average woman worked through all of 2013 AND the first 14 weeks of 2014 before earning what the average man made in 2013 alone). This day was created by the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) in 1996 to raise awareness about the gap that continues to exist between men’s and women’s wages.

Our partner profiles highlight the broad range of individuals and organizations we work with to advance and protect the rights of all people in Maine.

In the past week, anti-abortion laws in both Texas and Louisiana have gained ground. After the passage and implementation of HB 2, Texas became one of the most anti-abortion states in the nation. A provision of HB 2 - one involving doctors' hospital admitting privileges - was struck down this past November by US District Judge Lee Yeakel, who determined that the requirement placed an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions. Last Thursday, the US Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed Yeakel's decision, upholding the burdensome regulations. In Louisiana, the House passed HB 388, yet another bill imposing strict regulations on physician admitting privileges. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers bills of this type have been closing clinics all across the country, all under the guise of "women's safety." 

Yesterday, The Supreme Court heard approximately 90 minutes of arguments in the combined "contraceptive mandate" cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc and Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. vs. Sebelius. Two for-profit, private businesses, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities, were given the chance to justify their claim that their businesses should be exempted from the ACA's mandate addressing these cases, it’s important to note that the federal government makes an allowances for religious groups and institutions – they are not asked to provide health insurance plans with no-cost contraceptive coverage. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed by Congress in 1993, made space for these exemptions. Because of RFRA, religious institutions cannot be forced to comply with federal laws that would substantially burden their religious practices. While the CEOs of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods both profess a profound attachment to their religions, neither of their businesses are religious organizations. These cases bring to light two main questions. Can a private, profit-making corporation “exercise” religion? And, if they can exercise religion, can they be protected from government interference? Several different issues are wrapped up in these questions – corporate personhood; reproductive rights; and freedom to exercise religion.