2006 NEWS ARTICLES

On March 20, one of the nation's largest pharmacy chains, Wal-Mart, began selling the emergency contraceptive pill widely known as Plan B. The company reversed its earlier decision not to stock the prescription drug after protests by abortion-rights groups and legal action in Massachusetts forced Wal-Mart to sell the contraceptive there; Illinois had also passed legislation requiring sale of the drug at all pharmacies.

"Rather than try to fight these [bouts] state by state, it just seemed like the right time to begin to sell emergency contraceptives," a Wal-Mart spokeswoman told Time magazine. The National Organization for Women called the decision "long overdue."

Plan B, a super-strength version of the regular contraceptive pill, prevents ovulation or fertilization within the first 72 hours after intercourse. (Plan B is not RU-486, the "abortion pill," which can induce abortions up to nine weeks after fertilization.)

Wal-Mart's announcement of the reversal, on March 3, was followed days later by a South Dakota law banning most abortions. Gov. Mike Rounds signed the legislation, making it illegal for doctors in the state to perform abortions, except in cases where a woman's life is in danger. Planned Parenthood called the law "unconstitutional" and pledged to challenge it.

The leader of South Dakota's Oglala Sioux tribe is proposing a plan to circumvent the state's near-total abortion ban by opening a clinic on the reservation.

"An Indian reservation is a sovereign nation, and we're going to take it as far as we can to exercise our sovereignty," said Cecelia Fire Thunder, a former nurse who is the tribe's first female president.

Because federally recognized American Indian tribes are not, in many cases, required to abide by state law, a clinic could operate lawfully at the 2.7 million-acre Pine Ridge reservation even with a ban in place, said South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long.

Ms. Fire Thunder, who said she has counseled rape victims, said it was the Legislature's insistence on prohibiting abortions for women who have become pregnant as the result of a rape that drew her to speak out on the issue and propose building "a Planned Parenthood-type clinic" on tribal land.

She first floated the idea to an American Indian columnist in South Dakota last week. Since then it has been fodder for the local press and national blogs. Her e-mail inbox has filled up with people supporting the idea, she said.

The state ban takes effect July 1. For now, it remains legal to get an abortion in South Dakota. About 800 a year are performed at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, where doctors fly in once or twice a week from Minnesota, according to Marta Coursey, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. It is the only abortion clinic in the state.

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families last weekend began collecting the 16,728 signatures needed to place a referendum on the law on the November ballot – and gathered nearly 1,100 in a matter of days, said Nathan Peterson, the campaign's petition director. If the group gets the required signatures, the law would be on hold until fall.

Cecile Richards doesn't have the dairy-whip hair, the Texas twang or the shoot-from-the-lip style that made her mother, Ann, a Texas icon. With her close-cropped locks, refined manner and tempered speech, she seems more Ivy League than down-home.

But the two women share much, including a passion for causes they believe in and an unwillingness to back down from a fight.

It's a determination that the daughter of the former Texas governor will need as the new national president of Planned Parenthood, the country's largest provider of women's health care and one of the most powerful voices in the debate over reproductive rights.

Ms. Richards takes the helm as abortion, birth control and sex education continue to face vitriolic attack from opponents who equate abortion to murder and demonize groups that support reproductive rights.

Two weeks into the job, with an abortion case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and a recent decision in South Dakota to ban most abortions, Ms. Richards seemed undaunted by the fight on her hands. Issues include pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, limited access to emergency contraception and comprehensive sex education when many officials prefer an abstinence approach.

"I've never taken an easy job, I don't think," she said. "I can't remember one."

Her mother can't remember one either. "She's always going to take on whatever is the toughest challenge," Ann Richards said.

Cecile Richards, 48, says she relies on her family, faith and inner strength to get through the tough times and insists she had no qualms about taking the high-profile job.

"This has just been a gift," she said, displaying the idealistic streak she's had since childhood, when she pushed the family to recycle and protested the war in Vietnam.

As Planned Parenthood celebrates its 90th birthday, Ms. Richards said her goal is simple: to make sure it is the "premier women's health care provider."

"When they turn 100 in 10 years, I want women and families to be able to access safe, affordable community-based health care in every state in this country," she said.

"If I can do that I will feel like we – as my mom would say – we carried a bear over a mountain."

It will not be an easy fight. The opposition is organized, vocal and determined to thwart Planned Parenthood at every turn.

"Just about everything they do, we object to," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of America Life League, one of the largest anti-abortion organizations in the country. The league's project STOPP is specifically devoted to "defeating Planned Parenthood."

Planned Parenthood, founded in 1916 by nurse Margaret Sanger, masquerades as a health care provider, Mr. Sedlak said. But through its services, he said, it's "pushing sexualization of young people."

The appointment of Ms. Richards, whose background is in labor relations and activism, not health care, "will make it easier for us to fight them," he said.

Ann Richards disagrees: "You don't have to have a background in health care to know the birthing of babies, or not, is a health care issue for women."

Her daughter has a similar response: "I'd say folks from the other side have really tried to politicize what are basic health care services. That's the business we're in."

In conversation, Ms. Richards seems careful to stick closely to Planned Parenthood's mission of women's health, seldom using the word abortion. But she is adamant that birth control and abortion are health issues that should be decided by a woman and her doctor. "No politician can put themselves in the shoes of women who need to make those decisions."

She challenges those who criticize Planned Parenthood for providing abortions to help offer family-planning services. "We would love to have their help in making sure that any woman in America who needs access to family planning can get it, because that is simply the most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies."

Though Planned Parenthood faces numerous challenges, Ms. Richards declined to prioritize them. But she seems less concerned over an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court than with the direction of state legislatures.

"No one gets up every morning and thinks about the Supreme Court," she said. "But everybody has a legislature, and everybody knows that legislature has an enormous impact on every aspect of our lives."

Since the vote in South Dakota, she said: "We have had phone calls from women and families from all across the country saying, 'If the South Dakota Legislature can do this, then they can do it in my state. So how can I get involved? And what can I do?' I think it's been an enormous wake-up call."

James Roderick, president of Planned Parenthood of North Texas, said in a statement that he was thrilled by Ms. Richards' appointment. "She has a long history of coalition building."

The North Texas affiliate is one of the largest, and fastest growing in the country, with 28 clinics serving more than 87,000 clients in 57 counties in 2005.

Starting young

Ms. Richards' desire to change the world was evident from an early age, said her father, David Richards, a labor union lawyer.

After her parents moved her and her three siblings from Dallas to Austin, she took up their interests, serving as a Senate page and helping lawyer Sarah Weddington's legislative campaign.

Ms. Weddington went on to win Roe vs. Wade, the historic Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. Ms. Richards said that she hadn't thought about the connection to Ms. Weddington in years but that her belief in reproductive rights was more a product of growing up in the 1960s and '70s.

The growth of the civil rights and women's movements and the end of the Vietnam War "was a period of time in which we were all taught to believe we could change the world," she said.

"And it's something, actually, I kind of already regret for my own kids. I don't know that there's that same sense of one person can make a difference."

After graduating from a private school in Austin, Ms. Richards earned a degree in history from Brown University in Rhode Island. Even there, she was an organizer, supporting a janitors' movement for better work conditions."I had lived a very privileged life. I had an education that very few, very few people are so fortunate to get, and what was I going to give back?" she asked.

Her answer was to become a professional organizer, working to unionize garment workers in South Texas, nursing home workers in East Texas and hotel employees in New Orleans.

In 1982, she married fellow labor organizer Kirk Adams. They have three children, including daughter Lily, whom many remember as the young girl mentioned in Ann Richards' 1988 address to the Democratic National Convention. Lily is now a freshman in college.Friends and family describe her as a ferocious mother. "Cecile will not ask anything for herself," Ann Richards said, "but everything for her children."

Cecile Richards said that being the mother of three teenagers makes her feel even more strongly about Planned Parenthood. "I can't imagine that my children would have fewer rights, and less access to the safest, best health care."

Her religious views also shape her approach to life and work.

When her mother was defeated for re-election in 1994 by George W. Bush, Ms. Richards started Texas Freedom Network to counter what she saw as the negative effect of the religious right.

"For some, religion was sort of a blunt instrument that was used to beat up on other people who didn't agree with folks one way or the other," she said.

For her, religion is a motivator "to take on things that are wrong," said J. Charles Merrill, former senior pastor at University United Methodist Church in Austin, where Ms. Richards attended services.

Though important to her, Ms. Richards said her faith is "not something I wear on my sleeve."

She is grateful that her work with the Texas Freedom Network, and a subsidiary, the Texas Faith Network, a group of religious leaders dedicated to "politics of community and compassion," put her more in touch with her "personal faith beliefs."

Her mother, herself

No matter what she does, Cecile Richards will always be known in Texas as the former governor's daughter. The two women are close, and that closeness will be needed as the family faces Ann Richards' recent cancer diagnosis.

She is comfortable with her mother's legacy but distanced herself from it in 1998 when her husband's work took them to Washington, D.C.

There, she worked with media mogul Ted Turner's private foundation, focusing on reproductive rights. She then joined the staff of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. In 2003, she helped start America Votes, a nonpartisan group dedicated to increasing voter participation. The group has brought together influential organizations, including Emily's List, the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood.

Ms. Richards said her appointment to head Planned Parenthood feels like coming home. Reproductive rights has been "one of the most fundamental issues that I feel strongly about," she said.

Combining that issue with her interest in providing services to those who need them, "I feel I've come full circle," she said.

A complete circle would be returning to Texas – something Ms. Richards plans to do eventually.

Like her mother, Ms. Richards has a deep love for the Lone Star State. But coming home doesn't mean following in her mother's political footsteps – even though some Democrats, including Mom, have encouraged her to do so.

"I know at some point in my life I'll be back in Texas," she said. "I doubt it will be to run for political office."

Everyone has to decide how to make a contribution to society, she said. "I like to work with people to build organizations. I think that's my calling."

ATLANTA - More American women are having babies they didn't want, a survey indicates, but federal researchers say they don't know if that means attitudes about abortion are changing.

U.S. women of childbearing age who were surveyed in 2002 revealed that 14 percent of their recent births were unwanted at the time of conception, federal researchers said Monday.

In a similar 1995 survey, only 9 percent were unwanted at the time of conception.

At least one anti-abortion group said the numbers reflect a national "pro-life shift," while others who research reproductive health issues suggested it might mean less access to abortion.

The latest findings are consistent with the falling rate of abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues.

In 1995, for every 100 pregnancies that ended in abortion or a birth, almost 26 ended in abortion. In 2002, 24 ended in abortion, according to Guttmacher data.

That information seems to be in sync with the federal data released Monday, said Lawrence Finer, Guttmacher's associate director for domestic research.

"The two statistics together suggest — but don't confirm — that a greater percentage of unintended pregnancies resulted in births rather than abortions," Finer said.

The Guttmacher Institute is nearly finished with a study of that question, but Finer declined to discuss the results before they've been published.

Others feel the link is clear-cut.

"I don't think there's any mystery here," said Susan Wills, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The new data underscores that more women are turning away from abortions, even when it's a pregnancy they don't initially want, said Wills, associate director for education in the Conference's Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.

"It shows a real pro-life shift," she said.

More women may be carrying pregnancies to term because of increasing availability of ultrasounds and other information that show "it's a baby from an early time," Wills said.

Finer suggested the shift may reflect not only a diminishing demand for abortions, but also a decline in abortion providers, Finer said.

The number of U.S. abortion providers fell steadily in the last decade, from 2,400 in 1992 to 1,800 in 2000. The reason is not clearly known, although increasing government restrictions of abortions have made it increasingly difficult to provide the procedure, Finer said.

The new data on unwanted pregnancies was released by the National Center for Health Statistics, which surveyed 7,643 U.S. women on that and many other family planning and reproductive health questions in 2002 and early 2003. The surveyed women were between the ages of 15 and 44. Researchers only recently completed their analysis of survey questions.

Among the questions: "Right before you became pregnant, did you yourself want to have a baby at any time in the future?"

If they said no, the pregnancy was defined as "unwanted." Pregnancies that occurred sooner than the woman wanted were instead classified as "mistimed," said Anjani Chandra, lead author of the federal study.

Federal researchers don't know if the survey reflects a societal shift in attitudes toward abortion, Chandra added. "People have all kinds of attitudes that don't always reflect what they choose to do. We would never want to guess at people's attitudes based on their behavior," she said.

The proportion of unwanted births at time of conceptions was highest among girls under 18 — 25.4 percent. It was lowest among women 30 to 44 — 10.4 percent.

The proportion was higher for black women (26.2 percent) than for Hispanics (16.8 percent) and whites (10.7 percent).

• About 42 percent of women in 2002 said they never married, up from 38 percent in 1995.
  
• About 50 percent of women in 2002 said they had lived with a man in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, up from 41 percent of women in the 1995 survey.
  
• The overall rate of breastfeeding among recent births rose to 67 percent in 2002, up from 55 percent in 1995. The increase in black families was most pronounced, rising to 47 percent from 25 percent in the early 1990s.

A family planning program for low-income women in Dallas County is planning to close three neighborhood clinics and lay off more than 30 employees despite efforts by Parkland Memorial Hospital to keep the program intact.

As many as 11,000 women could lose access to postpartum care and birth control next year, doctors from UT Southwestern Medical Center warned Parkland's Board of Managers on Tuesday.

The doctors, who are running the program for Parkland, blamed an almost 25 percent cut in federal funding distributed by the state next year – a loss totaling $1.7 million.

The family planning program cared for 33,738 women at seven clinics over the last year.

The three clinics slated for closure are in Garland, Grand Prairie and north Oak Cliff. The four busiest clinics – in Oak Lawn, south Oak Cliff, East Dallas and southeast Dallas – would remain open.

"Our worst-case scenario was that the state would cut 20 percent of our funding," said Dr. Steve Bloom, UT Southwestern's interim director of obstetrics and gynecology. "It's a sad day for family planning in Dallas."

On Tuesday, the Parkland board urged UT Southwestern not to cut the program but instead look elsewhere for money. Hospital officials said they would consider trying to solicit $1 million in private donations to keep it going.

"We don't want to shut down the service, and we don't want to shut down that number of patients," board member Richard Kneipper said.

Parkland agreed in October to begin overseeing the women's health care program after a state law outlawed giving family planning funds to organizations that provide abortions on demand.

Planned Parenthood

Leaders at UT Southwestern, which had run the program for decades, were worried about possibly violating the law because some of its doctors practice medicine at hospitals where elective abortions are performed.

Dr. Ron Anderson, Parkland's president and chief executive officer, said the state Legislature was attempting to take money away from Planned Parenthood.

"I don't think the state Legislature understood the consequence of this," he told the hospital board. "It's a big snafu."

Planned Parenthood officials said at the time that the 2003 law was an effort to penalize the agency for providing legal abortions by cutting money for other services. Money instead went to public clinics that did not provide family planning. The organization sued successfully to hang on to all but 5 percent of its funding.

Emily Snooks, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of North Texas, said it was a shame that any family planning program would cut its services. Thirteen of the agency's 28 clinics in North Texas depend on such federal funds.

"It's the thousands of underserved North Texas women who are going to suffer the most," she said. "Planned Parenthood is the only family planning provider for uninsured women in Tarrant and other rural counties."

More deliveries

Parkland officials took over the UT Southwestern program after realizing that the charity hospital would end up delivering more babies without such a program. Its annual 16,000 births usually are the highest in the nation.

"If we don't care for these patients, they would come back to us generally as a more expensive patient and child," said Dr. Lauren McDonald, chairwoman of the Parkland board.

The financially strapped county hospital did not budget additional money for the program. But board member Alan Walne suggested that Parkland and UT Southwestern consider splitting the estimated $600,000 cost to keep the clinics operating for three months.

"If we each absorbed half the shortfall, we don't leave a bunch of women without family planning," he said. "In the spirit of the season, let's step up."

Dr. Bloom said UT Southwestern had notified 32 employees that their clinic jobs would be eliminated Jan. 31. Some of those workers were seeking positions elsewhere in the medical center.

"At the end of the day, the amount of funds we receive from the state will not allow us to continue the family planning program as we did before," he told the Parkland board. "We're hoping some of these women can be referred to the four other clinics, although we won't be able to handle them all."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had a private meeting with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday as he sought to reassure lawmakers that he would respect legal precedent on abortion rights and put his personal views aside.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, told reporters afterward: "I don't think his nomination is in trouble." Confirmation hearings for the 55-year-old federal judge are scheduled to begin January 9.

Senate Republicans and the White House sought to tamp down a growing chorus of criticism over a 20-year-old memo written by Alito, in which he commented on Reagan administration efforts to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling.

Specter's face-to-face with Alito came two days after the 1985 memo was released. In it, Alito, then a government lawyer, urged a gradual weakening of abortion rights rather than a "full-frontal assault" on the 1973 decision legalizing the medical procedure.

"He raised a sharp distinction, as he put it, between his role as an advocate and his (current) role as a judge," Specter said after the meeting. "With respect to his personal views on a woman's right to choose, that is not a matter to be considered in the deliberation on a constitutional issue of a woman's right to choose. The judicial role is entirely different."

Specter said Alito also reiterated his respect for precedent, a principle known as "stare decisis," or "to stand by what is decided" in Latin.

"Judge Alito says that when a matter is embedded in the culture, it's a considerable factor in the application of stare decisis," he said.

Specter said Alito views the Constitution as "a living thing in the sense that it protects rights by setting out principles to be applied in changing circumstances."

Reagan-era memos at issue

Alito's two-decade-old remarks on abortion have become a focal point of criticism by groups opposed to his nomination. He was working as a Justice Department lawyer at a time when the Reagan administration was deciding which position to take in approaching Supreme Court cases on whether to limit abortion access.

In a letter to his boss, Alito wrote, "No one seriously believes that the court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade." But he added that by accepting the cases, "the court may be signaling an inclination to cut back" on abortion rights.

"There may be an opportunity to nudge the court ... to provide greater recognition of the states' interest in protecting the unborn throughout pregnancy," wrote Alito. "I find this approach preferable to a full-frontal assault on Roe v. Wade. ... It makes our position clear, does not tacitly concede Roe's legitimacy, and signals that we regard the question as live and open."

Despite Alito's advice, the White House eventually pursued a strategy of trying to overturn Roe altogether. The high court eventually rejected the effort, and has affirmed the overall right to abortion in subsequent rulings.

Alito's memo was released Wednesday, the same day he submitted a detailed questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee on his professional work.

Democrats were critical of the abortion memo. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he found it "puzzling" Alito had failed to mention the memo in his questionnaire.

White House officials have been forceful in attacking any questions about Alito's record. "It's increasingly apparent that Senator Schumer has no intention of giving Judge Alito's nomination any consideration whatsoever and that he will vote 'no' on Alito like he did for Chief Justice (John) Roberts," said Steve Schmidt, who has been spearheading the Alito nomination for the White House.

Specter said the White House requested his one-on-one meeting with Alito.

Kennedy: Alito expressed 'extreme views'

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, also a committee member, said Alito has much explaining to do for what Kennedy called the judge's "extreme views."

"He needs to make clear that he no longer questions constitutionally established remedies for discrimination and protections for the right to vote, and that he will not come to the court with an agenda to roll back women's rights," said Kennedy in a written statement.

Abortion rights groups also continued their attacks Friday. "In this memo, Judge Alito sets forth a road map first to eviscerate Roe v. Wade, with the hope of eventually overruling the case altogether," said Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "What this document makes clear is Judge Alito's commitment to gutting women's access to essential reproductive health services."

Specter tried to remain neutral on Alito's explanation for his 1985 remarks, saying, "I am not satisfied, I am not dissatisfied." But he did raise concerns the nomination is becoming politicized along the lines of that of President Bush's previous high court nominee, White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

"I don't want to see Judge Alito prejudiced for half his hearing in the (media)," said Specter. "I just don't want to see that happen. And I'm really still furious about what happened to Harriet Miers. Her nomination wasn't only prejudiced, it was obliterated. Give this nominee (Alito) a chance to be heard. Let him be sworn in and let him be subjected to ... grilling by 18 well-prepared interrogators."

Alito was nominated to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor after Miers, originally nominated to fill the vacancy, withdrew her name following bipartisan criticism over her qualifications.

Alito's nomination has proven more controversial than that of John Roberts, who was successfully confirmed in September as chief justice.

In another undated 1985 letter, Alito, applying for a promotion within the Justice Department, touted his political philosophy: "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

The New Jersey-born judge sits on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With a new chief justice on the bench, the nation's high court seemed divided Wednesday in a high-profile abortion case that could have a major impact on the laws -- and politics -- regarding the medical procedure.

One case involves a New Hampshire law passed in 2003 that makes it illegal for doctors to perform abortions on minors without first giving their parents or legal guardians 48 hours notice in writing. The law would not require parental consent, and the only exception would be procedures deemed necessary to save a minor's life.

A federal appeals court ruled the law unconstitutional and blocked it from taking effect, saying the exception is not broad enough because it doesn't include exceptions to protect someone's health if their life is not immediately threatened.

Justice Stephen Breyer grilled New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte on the exception, asking her what the law would provide if a doctor decided a woman's life was in danger if she didn't receive an abortion quickly, according to audiotape released by the Supreme Court.

Ayotte responded that the minor could always have an abortion in such a circumstance. "People aren't weighing the right of the fetus in this instance to the right of the mother's health," she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Planned Parenthood attorney Jennifer Dalven why she is challenging the entire law if the harm she predicted would come to women seeking an abortion is "so narrow."

"The unfortunate reality is that some pregnant teens need an immediate abortion that delaying even for a short time could prove dangerous," Dalven replied.

Along with Breyer, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor expressed concerns that doctors would be placed in precarious medical and ethical dilemmas if the state law were allowed to stand.

Ginsburg took issue with Ayotte's assertion that a judge would have to approve an abortion in an emergency situation if the minor refused to notify her parents, saying it would be particularly impractical to get such approval late at night or on weekends.

"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," she said.

Justice David Souter expressed concerns about inserting language into the law that would broaden the exceptions, especially when the New Hampshire Legislature didn't include it when it ratified the law.

"There is ample record the state Legislature made a conscious choice and deliberately said, 'We'd rather have no statute than one with a health exception,' " Souter said.

The state argued that separate provisions known as "safety valves" allow doctors to seek an emergency judicial waiver of the parental notification requirement for situations in which the minor's life is not immediately threatened.

At least 33 states have parental notification laws, and a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicates that 69 percent of Americans favor such laws. Twenty-eight percent are opposed to such requirements.

However, the overall sentiment on abortion laws is the opposite, with 61 percent of Americans saying they don't support a constitutional amendment banning abortion and 37 percent saying they do.

Legal scholars say the case will hinge on whether the law presents an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion, a standard the Supreme Court has consistently followed in deciding if such laws are too restrictive.

But supporters of the state say the law falls well below that threshold.

"You're not talking about parental consent; you're just talking about notification. In high school, a kid can't even have an aspirin without getting a parental slip, so the idea that they could have an abortion procedure without telling the parents that it's about to happen just seems to be outrageous," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.

How the court rules in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England is expected to have implications for several states' abortion access laws.

The last time the court intervened in a case like this was 2000, when it tossed out a Nebraska law banning late-term abortions. That case mirrored the one in New Hampshire because health exceptions were its crux.

Just an hour before it heard the New Hampshire case, the Supreme Court tackled another contentious abortion matter -- protests outside clinics.

Since the mid-1980s, anti-abortion groups have taught classes on how to protest at abortion clinics.

The high court in the past has ruled on how far protesters must be from the clinics -- as well as from the patients entering the clinics -- and what kind of conduct is permissible.

Wednesday's case will force justices to revisit a 2-year-old ruling that stated protesters could not be prosecuted for harassing patients and doctors, blocking clinic doors or other disruptive behavior. The case also will beg clarification on the issue of whether racketeering and extortion laws apply to groups who organize "sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct the public's access" to medical clinics, according to court filings.

Supporters of abortion rights say these laws are the only solution to what they call dangerous and sometimes violent behavior aimed at those seeking or providing the medical procedure. Opponents say they are within their First Amendment rights to stage such protests.

The risk of deadly infection for women taking the RU-486 abortion pill appears to be extremely low and cannot yet be attributed to the pill itself, according to an article in today's edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The highly technical scientific report by a group of doctors and coroners, headed up by Dr. Marc Fischer of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, documents the deaths of four California women who died of toxic shock syndrome within a week after taking RU-486.

The first death, in September 2003, was that of 18-year-old Holly Patterson of Livermore, whose father Monty continued Wednesday to call for the ban of RU-486.

The four cases demonstrate that serious infection can occur after abortion induced by RU-486 -- much as it can occur after childbirth, miscarriage and surgical abortion, the scientific report states.

"However, available data suggest that the risk of such infections is low," it says.

Dr. Fischer, in a telephone interview this week, said that determining whether RU-486 itself suppresses the immune system, making women more vulnerable to infection with a rare bacteria called Clostridium sordellii, would require further laboratory study. He cited data indicating pregnancy itself might place some women at risk of the potentially fatal infection.

An accompanying perspective in the Journal written by Dr. Michael Greene warns against an outright ban of RU-486 in the United States at least until more in known.

"As tragic as the deaths of these young, healthy women are, they remain a small number of rare events ... " without a clear link to RU-486, according to Greene, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School and an associate editor of the Journal.

He said patients should be informed of the risk of Clostridium sordellii infection before they take RU-486. They should watch for subsequent symptoms, such as rapid heartbeat, fluid retention and prolonged abdominal cramping. RU-486 providers must also be aware of potential infection, and not be reassured by the absence of fever, he added.

However, "Regulators should keep this rare complication in perspective and not overreact to scant data by prematurely foreclosing on the only approved medical (nonsurgical) option for pregnancy termination," Greene wrote.

He said it appears the risk of maternal death from RU-486 is around one in 100,000, about the same as for other types of abortion. But he said risks associated with surgical abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy -- the period during which RU-486 is prescribed -- is about one in a million.

"On the surface of it, it seems like one risk is 10 times higher than the other," he said in an audio interview made available by the Journal. "However, when you get numbers that are that small, they are very difficult to measure with precision, and I don't think I or anyone else, on the basis of available data, at the moment would be willing to say this is a necessarily significant difference."

Greene noted that RU-486 has been in use in several other countries -- including in Europe and in China -- for more than a decade with no reported deaths.

Monty Patterson said he believes the incidents of adverse effects from RU-486 are significantly underreported.

2005 NEWS ARTICLES 

Miers Withdrawal
October 28, 2005

Free Speech Concerns
October 28, 2005

New Mammograms
October 28, 2005

Inmates Abortion Not Blocked
October 17, 2005

Miers and Religion
October 13, 2005

Cancer Vacine Effective
October 6, 2005

Roderick: Where to Turn
October 3, 2005

Roberts Hearing
September 15, 2005

Pregnancies Buck US Trend
September 2, 2005

FDA Official Resigns
August 31, 2005

Family Planning at Parkland Hospital
August 30, 2005

Death Penalty for Abortion Doctors
August 30, 2005

Parental Consent Goes Into Effect
August 26, 2005

Roberts Resisted Womens Rights
August 19, 2005

Guaranteed Prescriptions
August 18, 2005

Birth Control Under Threat
August 18, 2005

Government Decides ECs Fate
August 8, 2005

White House Web Misinformation
July 14, 2005

Foes Limit Scope of Roe
July 10, 2005

EC Study Findings
July 8, 2005

Justice OConnor Resigns
July 1, 2005 

Abortion Court Cases Could Rise
June 20, 2005

Help for Assault Victims
June 20, 2005

EC Faces Ban
June 17, 2005

Our Bodies at Middle Age
June 15, 2005

Abortion Limits Passed
May 27, 2005

Refusal to Ease EC Access
May 26, 2005

Abortion Consent Bill OK'd
May 19, 2005

Pregnant Student
May 19, 2005

Should Government Make Choices
May 19, 2005

Hot Button Issues
April 29, 2005

Scare Tactics
March 12, 2005

Health Plan at Risk
March 11, 2005

Thank You Pioneers
March 10, 2005

Breast Cancer
Feb. 25, 2005

Demanding Abortion Records
February 24, 2005

Parental Consent Bill
February 18, 2005

Bill Gives EC to Rape Victims
February 01, 2005

FDA to Rule on EC
January 17, 2005

Back to Top