The State of Abortion Rights in Kansas

Written by Diane Wahto

The Kansas Legislature joined several other states in the late 1960s and early 1970s in loosening restrictions on abortion. However, by May 5, 2010, when the override vote of Gov. Mark Parkinson’s veto of substitute HB 2115 failed by one vote, anti-choice Kansas legislators and groups were already looking to the 2011 legislative session. It was then that they were counting on getting enough anti-choice lawmakers on board to pass the restrictive law with a certain guarantee that an anti-choice governor would sign the law.

Thanks to discontent with government, fueled by the misinformed, lying, and outright racist Tea Party activists and right-wing media pundits, Republicans did indeed prevail on Nov. 2, 2010, around the country and in the State of Kansas. Unfortunately, these aren’t moderate Republicans like Bill Graves and Mike Hayden, governors who trusted women to make the right choice about their own reproduction. No, these are Republicans from the far right, anti-woman, anti-tax, anti-good government wing of the party. These are Republicans, such as Kris Kobach, the incoming Secretary of State, who want to make sure every voter has an ID in order to vote. This despite the cost of such a venture and despite the burden it places on people without a car or a driver’s license who would have to pay to acquire such an ID. This despite the cost to the state of any potential lawsuits that would arise against this policy. This despite the fact that there have been no problems with voter fraud in Kansas.

Apply this line of reasoning, making assumptions that something needs fixing when it’s not broken, to physicians who perform late-term abortions. The abortion restrictions such as those in HB 2115 assume that physicians don’t follow the law governing late-term abortions in Kansas.

HB 2115 would have required abortion providers to supply the Kansas Department of Health and Environment with the exact medical diagnosis that formed the basis for the abortion. The bill also would have required the Kansas Board of Healing Arts to revoke the license of any doctor found in violation of the late-term abortion laws. Additionally, under the law, a woman, her husband, or her parents, if she was a minor, could have sued a provider if any one of these people thought a late-term abortion was performed illegally.

As a result of this law, women would have lost their privacy rights, and doctors would have been under a constant threat of reprisals from anti-choice zealots who would have pressured patients to sue doctors.

Now that Kansas is dominated by right-wing, anti-choice legislators, and a governor who thinks zygotes talk to him, who knows what will happen to abortion rights in this state?
Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, an anti-choice lobbying group, said that KFL members have already started discussing what goals it will pursue in the next legislative session. In the past, even though both the House and Senate have passed bills restricting late-term abortions, these bills have been vetoed by Democratic governors. Now, no such safety net is in place.

Culp was quoted in a Nov. 3, 2010, Wichita Eagle article, written by Jeannine Koranda: “It is nice to know that when a [restrictive abortion] bill gets to Sen. Brownback's desk, it will get signed.”

Republicans will have a 31-9 majority in the Senate and a 92-33 majority in the House. Given that most of those Republicans are anti-choice, pro-choice activists in Kansas have their work cut out for them. The State of Kansas might find itself in a costly legal battle to secure abortion rights if the lawmakers go too far in curtailing those rights. And, once again, women will find themselves facing the prospect of being unable to exercise their power to make choices about their bodies.

Red State Round Up: Is Colorado's Amendment 62 Showing the Truth about the Anti-Choice Movement?

By Persephone, a pro-choice activist in Colorado

We're dealing with yet another personhood amendment here in Colorado this year. Amendment 62 is essentially a slightly beefed up version of an amendment defeated in 2008 by a margin of 73% to 27%. Hopefully we'll have just as much support this time around, especially since this one would stretch the definition of a person much more than the original to include stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization.

The specifics of this amendment and the controversy surrounding it shed some light on the way the anti-choice movement uses false information and what they're really all about.

Recently the 2010 Colorado Ballot Information Booklet (or Blue Book) was published. This book is provided by the state of Colorado to provide a fair and impartial analysis of each initiated or referred constitutional amendment, law or question on the ballot.

Personhood Colorado, an offshoot of Personhood USA and one of the main groups lobbying for amendment 62, has filed a lawsuit against the Legislative Council of the General Assembly alleging that the Blue Book used false statements and was not fair and impartial as is required by Colorado law.

They claim that none of their arguments were used for the pro side and the arguments presented for the con side were factually inaccurate.

At the Abortion Gang blog, we point out examples of anti-choicers using made up and/or skewed facts to promote their side on a regular basis. Amendment 62 is yet another example of anti-choice lies backed up by the Legislative Council of the General Assembly.

The lawsuit states "the ballot information booklet is, in effect, one big argument against Amendment 62." Could this be because there are no legitimate arguments for passing amendment 62 other than it being a ruse to do away with reproductive freedom?

I tried to find the pro-62 arguments that Personhood Colorado gave to the council but was unable to. I did however find the points that they claim are false in the anti-62 arguments.

According to Personhood Colorado's Scare Tactics Page the following include some of the misinformation being presented in the blue book.

It won’t ban contraception - They claim that the statement that amendment 62 will ban contraception is wrong because the term contraception has been skewed to include hormonal birth control methods. Since Personhood Colorado believes that hormonal birth control isn't actually a contraception, they claim the statement is false. The fact still remains that amendment 62 will outlaw all forms of birth control other than barrier methods.

It won’t ban or penalize in vitro fertilization - However, it will totally remake the program so that clinics can no longer create extra embryos making the process more difficult and much more expensive.

It won’t threaten the death penalty on doctors who do legitimate invasive surgery that could unintentionally harm a child in the womb - First, I don't know where they came up with the death penalty addition here. The blue book actually states that doctors can be penalized, not put to death. According to Personhood Colorado, "in those extremely rare situations where a woman needs treatment that might unintentionally result in the death of the child, the doctor would not have acted with intent to kill or even harm the child, but with intent to cure the mother." My question is how do they expect that this can be regulated? Since PC considers these instances rare, if a doctor preforms too many of these procedures will they then be investigated or penalized?

It won’t open the door to criminal investigations of women who miscarry - Just like the situation above, I wonder how this will be regulated. Again, if a woman has too many miscarriages will she then be put through an investigation?

So, in a nutshell this is what I got from the scare tactics page:

• All forms of birth control other than barrier methods will be outlawed
• In-Vitro Fertilization will be revamped, making it more difficult and more expensive
• Women who miscarry and doctors providing legal medical procedures could be open to legal investigations
• Ectopic pregnancies can be terminated with no new regulations
• Abortion will be made illegal
• Chemical "abortifacients" will be made illegal, and because antis (wrongly) consider hormonal birth control an abortifacient, this makes hormonal birth control illegal
• Human embryonic stem cell research will be made illegal

So, What's the Real Motivation?

If amendment 62 is passed, we will still have a case of the inalienable rights of a woman versus the inalienable rights of the fetus. And since it's the fetus that requires the use of the woman's body to live, the woman should have the right to maintain her bodily autonomy.

The fact that anti-choicers aren't fighting the rights of parents to refuse to give blood, bone marrow, organs, etc to save the life of their child once it's born, is a strong indicator that it's really not about the life of the child for them, but rather punishing women for being sexually active.

A Bonus Dose of Racism from Personhood USA

And as an added bonus, here's a really disturbing and problematic statement from Keith Mason, the President for Personhood USA during the amendment 62 debate.

I think it's important to note with the term fertilized egg, that's the same thing as using the N-word for an African American, because it's a dehumanizing term and it's not based in science. The term would be a zygote, or an embryo, speaking of a unique individual.

Learn More About Amendment 62

• Amendment 62: Colorado to Vote on Whether Fertilized Eggs Are People (Again) at Big Think
• Colorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 (2010) at Ballotpedia
• Personhood initiative lining up friends and foes at the Colorado Independent
• Buck changes stance on personhood amendment at 9news.com

(Cross posted at the abortion gang)

Red State Round-Up: Virginia

Written by Katie O'Connell, intern at a pro-choice organization in Virginia and contributing blogger, Shout Out! JMU

Up until last year I had never heard of a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC), which is funny, considering that there are 52 operating in Virginia, 38 of which receive state funding from ‘Choose Life’ license plates. In contrast, there are only 21 offices providing abortion services to the women of Virginia, 17 of which could be shut down if anti-choice zealots pursue targeted regulations through the state Board of Health. CPCs, for those who don’t know what they are, are unlicensed anti-choice, pro-abstinence facilities posing as medical clinics which exist solely to dissuade women from choosing abortion. In order to do so, they engage in misinformation and manipulation of women who may find themselves in a confusing and emotional situation. Frequently, it seems the pregnant woman’s ability to make her own informed choice is of little consequence, and they will do whatever they can to convince her to carry the pregnancy to term. Often CPCs list their services under “abortion” in the Yellow Pages so that women seeking abortions will end up going to them instead of a comprehensive women’s health clinic. Many of them advertise “post-abortion trauma syndrome” in their literature, saying that women may feel guilty or suicidal after having an abortion. One pamphlet used by CPCs entitled, “The Condom: Do Condoms Make Sex Safer?” states that “to date, there is no evidence that consistent use of condoms during oral sex reduces your chance of getting most STIs, including HIV” (Life Cycle Books). Much of what they do is steeped in a right-wing Christian agenda that strips women of reproductive choice and bodily autonomy.

I wanted to find out more about CPCs myself, from firsthand experience, so a friend and I decided to pose as a couple facing a possible unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. Since we attend James Madison University in Harrisonburg, we visited the local CPC (tagline: You Have More Choices than You Think), which was surreal—I was nervous that I’d slip up or seem suspicious, and I had no idea what to expect. I was assured during my training that my nervousness was actually a good thing, since any pregnant woman entering the clinic would probably be more freaked out than I was. Calligraphic bible verses and framed words like “peace” were the main decorative motif. Religious paraphernalia aside, the facility looked like a typical doctor’s office—reception window up front, pale green walls, and light-colored wicker furniture. Pictures of landscapes and flowers adorned the walls of the hallway. I had already been briefed on how things were going to go, since most CPCs follow the same basic formula: check in, pregnancy test, “options counseling,” and then results. After checking in I was required to fill out a form asking medical information, along with several probing questions about my views on abortion. For one such multiple choice question, the leading answers were “a) I think abortion is morally wrong, b) I’m not sure, and c) abortion is okay…” My male friend who had accompanied me to pose as my boyfriend was also required to fill out a form, since they had offered to counsel him as well. After a few minutes in the admittedly calming waiting room, their (licensed) nurse took me to the bathroom where I was instructed to pee in a cup, leave the urine sample on the bathroom counter, and then go into the room where I would be counseled.

The woman who counseled me came in a few minutes after I did and talked in a quiet soothing voice the entire time. Possibly the most infuriating thing about the visit was that she didn’t seem to actually know much about what I was asking her. Not only was she providing me with inaccurate medical information, she was mostly just reading it to me from various pamphlets and offering up vague anecdotes about women she had met. Additionally, the pamphlets did not provide much clearer information. “Before You Decide” contains what has become my favorite statistic of all time: “Use of the abortion pill has resulted in the death of a number of women due to sepsis.” I can’t believe that they would tout something so vague as a believable statistic—two is a number, but so is 200. Clearly the literature is meant only to scare women who seek abortion, as opposed to providing accurate medical information. As soon as she sat down the nurse fumbled with a “pregnancy wheel” in order to determine how far along I was (despite the fact that we didn’t even have the results of the test yet), and initially came to the conclusion, judging from my last period, that I was 10 weeks along before recanting and saying I was only seven weeks along. I asked her about the abortion pill (RU-486), and she told me that I was too far along to take it (I wasn’t – see heading What Is the Abortion Pill), and then pulled out another pamphlet, specific to RU-486. Opening the booklet to a picture of a forlorn looking blonde, she looked at me and said, “See? She looks sad… I think she really regrets her decision now.” The CPC places a heavy emphasis on the horrors of “post-abortion trauma syndrome,” which is evident in their campus advertising (“Had an abortion? Feeling scared? Nervous? Guilty? Suicidal?”), and their in-clinic talking points. She informed me that some women can have an abortion and seem totally fine, but 10 years down the road they’ll end up fraught with guilt and inner turmoil. She also said that women in her generation who had had abortions ended up with infertility later in life.

Eventually, the nurse came in to give me my results and answer any other medical questions I had. When I asked her about abortion side effects, she explained to me that most women hemorrhage after having abortions, that infertility and breast cancer are common side effects, and that the uterus is frequently perforated—all blatantly false statements. Later I asked whether or not they provide contraceptives, and I was handed a pamphlet about the inadequacies of condoms, and another pamphlet declaring that “the only safe sex is no sex until faithful married sex.” Abstinence only until marriage is a core value at CPCs, and after my negative pregnancy test result came back, my counselor said, “Now that you’re feeling so good about this result, why don’t we bring your boyfriend in to have a little discussion about your relationship?” She spent another 25 to 30 minutes with my friend and me pressuring us to promise abstinence, even telling us that having sex before marriage with someone other than your eventual spouse is akin to infidelity. At the end of this counseling session, my counselor informed me that she actually teaches a family life class at my university, which was not particularly reassuring about the unbiased quality of the education that myself and other students receive.

After my visit I flipped through all the literature that my friend and I had been given. The emotionally manipulative techniques are still unfathomable to me—I can’t believe that anyone would lie about someone else’s reproductive health just to push along their own political agenda. Not to mention, the paternalistic and misogynistic literature my male friend received was unbelievable. One pamphlet has an entire section on the apparent “Double Standard” of abortion—that when men push women to have abortions it’s seen as coercive and abusive, but when women choose abortion it’s an expression of freedom. Sorry to shake up your whole worldview, Life Cycle Books, but abortion is not about men, and not about the “Forgotten Fathers of Abortion.” It’s about women making very real medical decisions about their own body, and the fact that they should be able to do so without fearing stigmatization and shame from society. After this experience I began working with NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia on a campaign called “Support without Shame” because women need to have bodily autonomy and make crucial decisions for themselves. The Support without Shame campaign is not attempting to shut down CPCs. We just believe that all women facing unintended pregnancies deserve respect, freedom from shame and guilt, and access to unbiased medically accurate and science based information regarding ALL options. Women should be trusted with their own bodies. It’s not as if there are laws on the books constantly governing what men do with their bodies. At the CPC, I was stressed and upset as someone who wasn’t pregnant, and who was actually expecting to be manipulated and lied to. I can’t imagine what this would be like for an unsuspecting and vulnerable pregnant woman who believes what she is being told by people who can barely keep their own information straight.

Red State Round-Up: Arizona

Written by pro-choice activist Amanda Webster

On July 29th 2010, Arizona law SB 1304/HB 2649, an expanded abortion reporting bill, went into effect. Observing that our current governor, Jan Brewer is "pro life", as well as the majority of our state's House and Senate, another anti abortion bill passing comes at no major shock to residents of the Grand Canyon State. Certainly it's not the worst of our anti choice legislation considering our mandatory wait period, insurance prohibition, targeted regulation of abortion providers, and teenage consent law.

What do you need to know about a woman who has had an abortion? Does it matter how old she is, her marital status, how much she has in her bank account, or where she works? Are we less judgmental when a woman can "justify" her choice to terminate a pregnancy? Or does the anti choice movement want to strip women of their privacy and place one more roadblock between her and her right to a safe and legal elective abortion? The group Arizona Right to Life brags on their website that "the information [gathered from this bill] gives policymakers and pro-life advocates more statistical information on abortions performed in the state, and the information is also used by crisis pregnancy centers to better serve the needs of women." The movement is sly in their tactics, we can't argue that. Coming from someone who has been a victim of the deception of a "crisis pregnancy center", I can assure you that the information gathered will be used for nothing more than a more educated angle at trying to manipulate women out of their decision to terminate. While I fully support offering resources to women who feel coerced into an abortion, I certainly do not think that giving her false hopes and inaccurate information is going to accomplish that. All it is doing is postponing her decision, but unfortunately sometimes that's all they need to prevent her from obtaining her procedure.

The problem isn't the concept of mandatory reporting, as some statistics can prove beneficial to providing medical research and protecting the health of women. The dilemma with this specific bill is that the recordkeeping required does not respect the patient's confidentiality and right to privacy. For example, reason for abortion data is already required on reports, but the bill language leaves a loophole to include requiring a woman to provide her reason for choosing an elective abortion. Currently, abortion providers are required to report particular information to the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS.) This bill expands already existing requirements. It now includes things like seven new court reporting requirements regarding judicial bypass for minors and information from health care professionals about complications that may arise from the procedure. ADHS is already having issues reporting accurate numbers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the state, and there is no evidence that requiring additional information will improve reporting outcomes. Despite the fact that individually identifiable references are removed from the final analysis that is available to the public, this law still creates an additional unneccesary burden for the woman, demanding personal information during an already emotional time. Information that is not going to prove beneficial to anyone but those opposed to her right to be there in the first place.

Red State Round-Up: Kansas

Written by Diane Wahto of Wichita, Kansas

Kansas liberals have their work cut out for them after a legislative session in which Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson vetoed bills that tightened abortion restrictions, denied federal family planning money intended for Planned Parenthood, and funneled money intended for Public Broadcasting to the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs. Additionally, conservatives have mounted a campaign to remove Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Bier from office and to change the way judges are selected.

These events take place against the backdrop of Dr. George Tiller’s murder a little more than a year ago and the pending prosecution by the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts of Dr. Ann Kris Neuhaus, the doctor who signed off on the documents allowing the late-term abortions that Dr. Tiller performed for women around the world.

The last several years, Kansans have become accustomed to having moderate Democratic and Republican governors, including Republicans Bill Graves, Mike Hayden, and Democrats John Carlin, Kathleen Sebelius, and Mark Parkinson. Parkinson, formerly a Republican, changed parties in order to run for lt. governor with Sebelius because he saw the Republican Party moving too far to the right. He ranks high in the polls and probably could win a second full term if he chose to run again. However, both he and Troy Findley, his lt. governor, announced that they would not run for governor at the end of their terms.

That leaves us with a choice between unknown Democratic candidate and staunch pro-choice supporter Tom Holland and Republican Senator Sam Brownback, who is an avowed enemy of Roe v. Wade, Public Broadcasting, Planned Parenthood, and taxes. He also believes the problems with Social Security have come about because women have abortion rights, thus leaving unborn the tax-paying workers who would be contributing to Social Security. His Senate voting record shows he has consistently voted against the interests of Kansans. Despite that, right now the polls show Brownback ahead by a large margin over Holland.

When Parkinson vetoed SB 218, the bill restricting late-term abortions, the Senate override attempt failed, but the House attempt passed by one vote. The bill came back up for an override vote and this time the override failed by two votes. One vote change came about after intense e-mail, phone, and Facebook lobbying efforts of one representative. This bill would have ended the so-called partial birth abortion 'mental health' exceptions and stipulate precise reporting of late-term abortions.

If Brownback does succeed in his run for governor, there will be no defense against anti-choice attempts to toughen late-term abortion restrictions in the state. Right now, no Kansas provider performs late-term abortions, but the anti-choice faction is trying to guard against having Dr. Leroy Carhart, an associate of Dr. Tiller’s, move to Kansas from Nebraska.

Another Tiller associate, Dr. Ann Kris Neuhaus, faces an 11-count disciplinary complaint relating to the second opinion documents she signed for Dr. Tiller. The complaint alleges she failed to properly evaluate whether the abortion was necessary to save the life or the health of the woman, as required by Kansas state law, a charge she denies. Dr. Tiller, acquitted of misdemeanor charges in a court of law in April 2009 , faced the same charges. They were dropped when he was killed. The charges are questionable, given that the petition was made public by Operation Rescue, which had filed the initial charges against both doctors. An evidentiary hearing is set for Jan. 11, 2011.

In the meantime, the Kansas political scene, coming off a heated, mudslinging primary among Republicans, will roll on to the November election. With Brownback having the edge in name recognition, pro-choice voters can only hope that Holland can make himself known and let voters know how reactionary Brownback is. After all, he’s the senator who stood on the floor of the Senate in front of a hand-drawn picture of embryos, labeled in childish scrawl, “We love you.”

If Kansans for Life succeed in their push to remove Justice Bier and conservatives prevail in their move to change the method of appointing Kansas Supreme Court justices, Kansas will face a perfect storm of Red State rollback. Currently, state Supreme Court justices are picked by a nine-member nominating commission; four of those commissioners are non-lawyers appointed by the governor. The other five, including the chair, are elected by lawyers. The proposed change touted by conservatives would allow the governor to send nominees’ names to the legislature for approval. Rather than take politics out of the mix, as conservatives claim, this process would politicize the process beyond repair.

Fortunately, many Kansans are stepping up to make sure their state stays semi-purple. Democrats at their state meeting on Aug. 14, were energized and ready to go to work for their well-qualified candidates. Kansas NOW and Wichita NOW have energetic people working for women’s reproductive rights. A new group, The Group, has started a grass roots movement to get moderate Republican women as well as Democratic women involved in the political process. Even though she didn’t win the primary, pro-choice Republican Jean Shodorf moved ahead of a well-funded anti-choice opponent, thanks in part to the efforts of The Group. Kansans don’t plan to throw in the towel just yet.

Red State Round-Up: New Mexico

Written by Marshall Martinez, Board President of New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

It has been just over a year since the murder of Dr. George Tiller robbed us of an exceptional physician who stood with unflinching resolve against all who tried to stop his life-saving work. I will always remember the shock and sadness of that Sunday, May 31, when Dr. Tiller was gunned down as he stood in the foyer of his Lutheran church in Wichita, welcoming anyone entering to worship. That he was killed in his church, and that he found strength and purpose through his religious faith made his death especially grievous for us as people of faith.

Since then, women who needed late term abortion care have had nowhere to turn, until January of this year when Curtis Boyd, MD PC made the decision to provide late term abortions into the third trimester on a case by case basis. In response, Troy Newman has posted on Operation Rescue’s website their plans to collaborate with Project Defending Life, Catholic Pro-Life Ministries in New Mexico to, "strategize about future efforts to close the abortion business here after the largest late-term abortion clinic in the nation closed last year in Wichita, Kansas."

As most readers of this blog already know, when convicted murderer Scott Roeder was arrested for the murder of Dr. George Tiller, in Wichita, KS the police found the name and phone number of Cheryl Sullenger in his car. Cheryl Sullenger is Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor and she served two years in prison for conspiring to bomb abortion clinics in 1988. In spite of this, Operation Rescue has denied having any responsibility for the assassination of Dr. Tiller. Now they have announced plans to "..open a satellite office in Albuquerque that will be directed from our headquarters in Wichita."

Prior to the partnership between Operation Rescue and Project Defending Life, the Catholic Pro-life community of New Mexico had always been peaceful and prayerful during any demonstrations at abortion clinics. I am disappointed that Archbishop Sheehan would turn over his leadership in the Pro-life community of New Mexico to Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger and their use of intimidation, harassment and violence which is in complete opposition to everything I believe in as a Catholic. As a child growing up in a Catholic family in southern New Mexico, I was taught to live the Catholic values of compassion and mercy and to treat everyone with love and respect, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not. Service to the church and community was done through love and humility in order to grow the Catholic values of compassion, mercy and respect in the community. I believe that Operation Rescue’s presence here will attract unstable, extremist individuals to New Mexico and could result in the same kind of violence that has happened in Wichita, Kansas and other communities

The director and founder of Project Defending Life is Fr. Stephen Imbarrato, a priest of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and therefore under the authority of Archbishop Michael Sheehan. The New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has asked the Archbishop to issue a written statement directing all of his religious leaders and laity to avoid all association, cooperation and collaboration with Operation Rescue, Operation Save America and all other "pro-life" hate groups, but has not received any response. You can help by signing our petition.

Red State Round-Up: Oklahoma

Written by Kathleen Wallace, Attorney in Oklahoma City, OK

I. The Oklahoma Legislature Passes 8 Anti-Choice Bills in 2010

On May 28, 2010, the Oklahoma legislature adjourned for the session without overriding Governor Brad Henry's veto of an abortion insurance bill. This was the only veto (of 4) that escaped over-ride. Among other things, the legislation would have banned insurers planning to participate in the new federal insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage. There were eight abortion restriction passed by the legislature this session.

Two of the most offensive bills were specifically targeted by our lobbying efforts: The ultrasound requirement (HB 2780) and the reporting requirements bills (HB 3284). The ultrasound requirement bill forces a woman seeking an abortion to hear in detail a description of an ultrasound image, even if she objects. The reporting law requires doctors to inquire about the most private aspects of the life of a woman seeking an abortion, touching on about 90 different factors including her race and ethnicity and whether financial or relationship problems are the reason she is planning to have an abortion. That information will then be published on a public website.

II. The Pro-Choice Response

A. In Court

The Center for Reproductive Rights was set to argue for a temporary restraining order on the ultrasound bill on Monday, July 19, 2010, but attorneys for both sides agreed to accept the order before the court hearing, Oklahoma County District Judge Noma Gurich said. She signed the order Monday afternoon. Attorney General Drew Edmondson agreed to the order to give his office more time to retain Teresa Collett, a University of St. Thomas Law School professor who represented the state when a similar law passed in 2008 was challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Teresa Collett currently resides in Minnesota but is originally from Norman, OK.

The next hearing is scheduled for Jan. 21, 2011.

B. In the community

Women in Oklahoma were shocked when they found out about these laws. Over 60 activists assembled in Norman Oklahoma in May to plan some action. From this group, the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice was formed (http://ocrj.org/). This group is having a planning meeting in mid-August to strategize regarding next steps. Also, Jordan Goldberg, attorney from Center from Reproductive Rights in NYC will be in Oklahoma City soon to discuss our options with us.

In addition, Oklahoma now has a vibrant new pro-choice PAC, Sally’s List.

Stillwater, Oklahoma is home to the Oklahoma State Cowboys and the pro-choice women there have a web presence at OK 4 R J.

Additionally, an Oklahoma Women’s Law Center is also in the planning stages.

Stay tuned, Oklahoma’s women are outraged and we plan to let our legislators know it.