Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

As a result, most Democrats voted against the effort, creating an opening for Republicans to claim that lawmakers who have spent months accusing them of waging a war on women, are themselves engaged in a war against little girls. As Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), the bill’s sponsor, and his conservative allies put it:

[Franks] characterized the the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) as a bill necessary to prevent ”the ultimate violence against women,” a nod to the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act in the House. [...]

Franks drew parallels between sex-selection abortion in the United States and the forced abortions in China and India. Rep. Chris Smith (R-CT), who was one of several Republicans at Thursday’s briefing, called sex-selection abortion on females, “the real war on women,” a reaction to women’s groups and Democrats’ accusations that Republicans have declared a “war on women.” Smith also deemed sex-selection abortion as “population control.”

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly 92 percent of all abortions take place before the gender of the fetus can be identified and under the bill, “only 1.5 percent of pregnancy terminations would occur at a time when sex selection was even possible,” while doctors would have had to become detectives in order to sniff out the “true” motives of their patients.

The measure placed additional burdens on Asian American women, who come from communities that have culturally valued boys more than girls. But rather than reducing instances of sex discrimination that lead to a preference for boys, the bill only perpetuated stereotypes about sex selection and did nothing to expand equality for women in the law. “If Representative Franks wants to be a friend to the Asian American women’s community, we would welcome him to partner with us on any number of initiatives we’ve taken that really lift up the status of women and girls in our community,” Miriam W. Yeung, Executive Director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum told ThinkProgress, noting that none of these sponsors have supported PRENDA backed VAWA, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, or Health Equity and Accountability Act.

Indeed, Franks’ assumptions — he claimed that “sex selection is demonstrably increasing here in the United States, especially but not exclusively in the Asian immigrant community”– already seem premised on the idea that Asian American women are somehow victims instead of autonomous, thinking people who make decisions about their own reproductive health. And that perception fits well with the GOP’s anti-women voting record.

But ahead of tomorrow’s vote on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), a bill that would ban physicians from performing abortions based on the fetus’ sex, anti-choice organizations have clumsily attempted to co-opt the “war on women” meme. Even though it is a measure that addresses a non-existing problem, the groups are warning members of Congress to support it:

– “Planned Parenthood is out of control, waging a ruthless war against young women and their (female) babies.” [Traditional Values Coalition email]

– “This is a real war on women. And it is wrong when we turn a blind eye to women being eliminated in the womb simply for being a member of the female sex.” [Americans United for Life letter]

– “Members who recently have embraced contrived political rhetoric asserting they are resisting a ‘war on women’ must reflect on whether they wish to be recorded as being defenders of the escalating war on baby girls.” [National Right to Life Committee letter]

And during floor debate today about PRENDA, GOP House members claimed the sex-selective abortion ban was part of the “war on women” as well:

– “This is the ultimate war on women. If we don’t allow women to be born, we cannot talk about any other rights.” [Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY)]

“Sex selection is violence against women and it is the truest kind of war against women.” [Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)]

Republicans may echo the anti-abortion advocates and try to claim PRENDA would stop a “war on women,” but it is a discriminatory bill that does not address equal rights for women. Rather than addressing inequality, PRENDA simply would exacerbate sex and race discrimination by targeting women of color from communities associated with sex selection whom doctors might suspect of wanting to have a prohibited abortion.

Supporters of the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), said removing the restriction is a matter of fairness for military women:

Supporters argue that it would simply provide parity between civilians insured by the government and uniformed service members. [...]

“This is about equity,” Shaheen said. “Civilian women who depend on the federal government for health insurance — whether they are postal workers or Medicaid recipients — have the right to access affordable abortion care if they are sexually assaulted. It is only fair that the thousands of brave women in uniform fighting to protect our freedoms are treated the same.”

Shaheen’s provision would mirror the Hyde Amendment, which allows Medicaid funding for abortions in cases of rape and incest, so women with military-provided insurance plans would have the same health care options as civilian women with government health care plans.

And because nearly one in three women will be sexually assaulted while serving in the military, Shaheen’s amendment expands access to necessary services so that women do not have to pay out of pocket if they seek abortion care after being rape.

Now that the committee has approved the measure — with three Republicans voting for it — it heads to the Senate floor. When Shaheen introduced this amendment last year, anti-choice senators blocked it from being considered.

The Catholic Church, however, excommunicated those who helped rescue her.

In 2009, a 9 year old in Brazil had to have an emergency abortion after her mother brought her to the hospital for complaining about severe stomach pains and discovered the girl was four months pregnant. But after the procedure, instead of embracing the victim and offering to help the family, the Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed the abortion and the girl’s mother.

The Church did not excommunicate the rapist:

The controversy represents a PR nightmare for the Vatican. The unnamed girl’s mother and doctors were excommunicated for agreeing to Wednesday’s emergency abortion yet the Church has not taken formal steps against the stepfather, who is in custody. Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the conservative regional archbishop for Pernambuco where the girl was rushed to hospital, has said that the man would not be thrown out of the Church, because although he had allegedly committed “a heinous crime”, the Church took the view that “the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious”.

The case has set off fierce debate in Brazil, where abortion is permitted only in cases of rape or medical emergency. Brazil is one of the most populous Catholic countries, but conservative attitudes in rural areas are strongly at odds with the relatively progressive public view of abortion in major cities.

While the circumstances are much more grave in this example, the same conflict of beliefs is now happening the United States: While 82 percent of Catholics support birth control use, the Catholic Church is suing to have it removed from required health care plans.

This case shows the extent to which some far-right leaders in the Catholic Church will go to fight against what they charge as morally reprehensible — even if the vast majority of their adherents don’t agree, or consider the charges flipped.

Fire fighters respond to Wednesday's clinic fire. (Source: wsbtv.com)

Clinic workers believe the fire started on the third floor. They said two unknown men went upstairs and left shortly afterward, minutes before the fire was discovered.

“We have patients here. They’re under anesthesia. This could have been life-threatening,” employee Angela Buckner told Channel 2’s Ross Cavitt.

On Sunday, a fire was reported at another clinic in Gwinnett County. In addition to the recent fires, women’s health clinics reported break-ins and stolen computer equipment in March after the Georgia legislature approved a restrictive bill preventing abortions after 20 weeks. Clinic workers said the thefts were attempts to intimidate doctors who perform abortions and fought against the bill. “They’re treating us like terrorists,” Richard Zane, whose Atlanta Women’s Health Center was burglarized, told a local Patch site.

Gov. Nathan Deal signed the 20-week ban, which has no exemption for cases of rape or incest, into law earlier this month.

D.C. protesters knocking on Rep. Franks' office door

One by one, about 50 protesters knocked on the door of Franks’ office, and then spoke a few words about a problem in the city that they think “Mayor Franks” should address if he’s going to be writing laws that affect D.C. residents.

“My issue today is Metro — full funding for Metro,” said Jon Ozment, a 56-year-old D.C. resident. “As a constituent here, I use Metro all the time, my children use it, and it’s really disgraceful the condition they’ve allowed Metro to get to.”

“I have to say I’m very disappointed today,” he added. “I really wanted to meet my representative, Mr. Franks. He’s supposed to be representing us and I did take some time to come in here today, so I hope he takes these concerns into account.”

During the subcommittee hearing last week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) criticized Franks for blocking Del. Eleanor Norton (D) — D.C.’s only congressional representative — from testifying against the measure. The ban itself is based on the contested theory that a fetus can feel pain 20 weeks after gestation and mirrors prohibitions in seven states.

Wednesday’s protest was organized by Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington DC and DC Vote.

The woman emailed Jodi Jacobson, editor-in-chief of RH Reality Check, recounting the experience:

Right before we were set to land the flight attendant from first class approaches me and asks if I had a connecting flight? We were running a bit behind schedule, so I figured I was being asked this to be sure I would make my connecting flight. She then proceeded to tell me that I needed to speak with the captain before disembarking the plane and that the shirt I was wearing was offensive.

The shirt was gray with the wording, “If I wanted the government in my womb, I’d fuck a senator.” I must also mention that when I boarded the plane, I was one of the first groups to board (did not pass by many folks). I was wearing my shawl just loosely around my neck and upon sitting down in my seat the lady next to me, who was already seated, praised me for wearing the shirt.

The shirt’s words are actually lifted from a sign used by Oklahoma state Sen. Judy McIntyre (D) at a pro-choice rally. McIntyre told critics who found her sign offensive that “I would hope they would have that same passion about how offensive it is for the Republican Party of Oklahoma to ramrod, because they have the votes to do so, bills that are offensive to women and take away the rights of women.”

American Airlines has an exceptionally strict dress policy, according to CNN. It says that “it can refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight for reasons including ‘being clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers.’”

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin suspended medication abortions in April because of the ambiguous anti-abortion measure that Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed into law, which requires women to make at least three separate visits to their doctor for the procedure.

NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin Executive Director Lisa Subeck said in a statement that women will “suffer” because Walker and state Republicans have limited women’s health care options in the state:

“Wisconsin women will suffer because of Governor Walker’s actions. It is unacceptable that women are losing health care options because Walker has put his extreme social agenda ahead of what is best for women’s health. [...] Women lose out when out of control politicians like Scott Walker practice medicine without a license and interfere in the relationship between doctors and their patients.”

Dr. Fredrik Broekhuizen, a Wisconsin medical director, told RH Reality Check in April that “[i]f we follow the FDA rules and follow protocol, we would violate this law. And we have no ability to defend ourselves,” he said of the restrictions on medication abortions.

The fight over women’s access to abortion has been particularly fierce in Wisconsin. A Planned Parenthood clinic was firebombed in early April before Walker quietly signed anti-abortion legislation into law later in the month.

Scene from the movie, "180"

The principal agreed to hand out the anti-abortion film, titled 180, if students obtained parental consent first, but the copies were handed out before parents were notified. One parent told Fox 23 heard about it from her stepdaughter:

“She said that she had seen a DVD in school that basically said that if you have an abortion then you are no better than the Nazis and you will go to hell,” says concerned parent, Marty Angus.

Angus was furious after his stepdaughter came home and told him she had seen it in class.

“She said well, we went to our lockers on break and there was a note that said come pick up your free DVD,” says Angus.

Officials confiscated the movies after realizing how graphic the movie was, but two classrooms saw it first. “I thought it was graphic and a clear violation between church and state and it was just awful to be shown to a high school student,” Marty Angus, whose stepdaughter saw the movie in class, told Fox 23.

The Christian ministry Living Waters produced the movie. When it was released in 2011, the Anti-Defamation League called the fillm “one of the most offensive and outrageous abuses of the memory of the Holocaust we have seen in years.”

During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) criticized his GOP colleagues for blocking Norton from testifying alongside the Democrats’ witness, Christy Zink, a D.C. resident who “told of having an abortion at 21 weeks after tests showed the fetus had life-threatening brain anomalies.”

But Franks said late-term abortions were “the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today,” calling the practice “inhumane.” And when he questioned a doctor who described an abortion procedure after 20 weeks, Franks compared the 20-week ban to animal cruelty statutes:

FRANKS: I find it tremendous — I don’t even want to use the word irony, just a break from human compassion that while we would do the right thing and prevent those things from happening…to animals, but not to human babies.

Watch here:

Women’s access to abortion care in D.C. has been under fire. In December, House Republicans forced a ban on funding for abortion services in D.C. to avoid a government shutdown and even prevented the city from using local taxes to pay for abortion care, reinstating a 13-year ban on abortion funding in D.C. that President Obama overturned in 2009.

But by using a medical procedure as a political football, Franks is necessary health care for women like Zink who want to decide with their doctors what is best for them — without input from Republican politicians.

Last February, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) came under intense criticism when he would not allow Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke to testify in support of an Obama administration rule requiring employers to provide birth control without additional cost sharing.

But as opponents of the measure point out, there is more at stake than religious convictions for doctors or pharmacists:

Most of the opposition in the House came from Democratic lawmakers representing districts near St. Louis and Kansas City who argued the legislation would inhibit access to health care for some Missourians. Several opponents said it seemed the measure was aimed particularly at birth control.

Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, said the medical procedures at issue in the legislation would affect women most directly. Speaking with a male opponent of the measure, Newman said, “You will be putting your stamp on what you think I should be doing and also deciding if your religious beliefs will supersede my religious beliefs and my moral convictions.”

This bill now goes to the state Senate for consideration before the Missouri legislative session ends on Friday.

Missouri is not the only state to consider this kind of bill. On Tuesday, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a similar bill allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription that they think could be used to induce an abortion. Opponents claim the law is broad enough that it could allow pharmacists to deny birth control or emergency contraception, or even procedures like chemotherapy if they would put a pregnancy at risk.

-Zachary Bernstein

Del. Eleanor Norton (D), D.C.’s only elected represetative, asked Franks last week if she could testify about the bill at an upcoming Thursday hearing. Franks denied her request, which Norton said breaks tradition of allowing members of Congress to testify about a bill that affects their constituents. Similarly, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) prevented women from testifying on a panel about contraception back in February.

Norton told the Huffington Post that her constituents are “up in arms” about the proposed abortion ban:

“This is the first bill in history that attempts to take the residents of the District of Columbia outside of the protection of the Constitution,” she continued. “The right to have an abortion until viability is a mandated right under Roe v. Wade. I think it takes a lot of nerve to single out the constituents of another member’s district for discriminatory treatment, and we deeply resent it.” [...]

D.C. is an easy target for anti-abortion bills, Norton said, because it doesn’t have any elected officials who can vote in Congress.

“Why wouldn’t they put this bill in for the entire country if they feel so deeply about it?”

In December, House Republicans forced a ban on funding for abortion services in D.C. to avoid a government shutdown and even prevented the city from using local taxes to pay for abortion care, reinstating a 13-year ban on abortion funding in D.C. that President Obama overturned in 2009.

Lawmakers in six conservative states have banned abortion after 20 weeks, including Georgia and Arizona which approved the bans this year.

The Senate killed the same proposal in October after the House passed it as part of an agriculture bill, so it is likely the same thing will happen again.

When he introduced the measure on Thursday, King said his proposal was about stopping Planned Parenthood from providing what he has called “robo-Skype abortions“:

King said these “telemedicine abortions” help Planned Parenthood save costs by getting the same result as a surgical abortion, but “without the overhead costs.” But King said evidence is mounting that the morning-after pill, RU-486, is dangerous to women.

“Eight percent of women who take the abortion drug known as RU-486 require surgical intervention to complete their abortion,” he said. “This new practice leaves those women at grave risk and should never be supported with taxpayer dollars.”

The problem is that King’s view of telemedicine abortion services as a way to lower overhead costs is completely inaccurate. For one, Planned Parenthood officials have confirmed that abortion medication is a very small part of the telemedicine services the organization offers.

And studies have shown that medication abortions with a doctor connected by teleconference is safe, and it expands health care options for rural women who otherwise would find it difficult to terminate their pregnancies. And as states like Wisconsin block these procedures, researchers have found that there is no reason to restrict medication abortion services via telemedicine. Once again, King is using scare tactics to push for unnecessary policies that would hurt women’s access to health care.

A video obtained by Rachel Maddow’s blog captures Carpenter saying he is proud of Mississippi’s attempts to outlaw abortion outright, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled abortions legal in the United States.

And what about women who will perform self-induced abortions because they cannot afford to go out of state to get the procedure? “Hey,” he says, “you have to have moral values”:

It’s going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all — but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to– Roe vs. Wade. So we’ve done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They’re like, ‘Well, the poor pitiful women that can’t afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger. That’s what we’ve learned over and over and over.’

But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we’ve decided to do. This became law and the governor signed it, and I think for one time, we were first in the nation in the state of Mississippi

Watch it:

Mississippi recently passed a law meant that legislators claimed was meant to stop self-induced abortions, known as “coat hanger abortions,” which are generally extremely unsafe and dangerous to a woman’s health. At the same time, this law will likely force the state’s only abortion clinic to close.

Judge Worthington ruled that the bill’s restrictions on medication abortion are unconstitutional because they are “so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that [the bill] can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those women who do.” [...]

The law — which had been temporarily blocked since October — would have banned any off-label use of medications for abortion or treatment of ectopic pregnancy, while explicitly allowing off-label use of the same medication for other purposes. According to the lawsuit, the law not only jeopardizes women’s health by preventing doctors from using safe and effective methods available, but also undermines women’s ability to exercise the full range of their fundamental constitutionally protected reproductive rights.

A judge temporarily blocked the law from going into effect in October. At the time, the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, a group that challenged the law, noted that 21 percent of all drugs are prescribed for off-label use and that the injunction ensured “women in Oklahoma will continue to be able to access medical care that accounts for scientific evidence, sound medical judgment and advancements in medicine.” Now that the law has been declared unconstitutional, women’s access to medical care in Oklahoma can continue.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it. . . . Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

It’s not entirely clear why Paul believes Congress has this power, and the email he signed does not provide a fully developed legal argument making the case for such an law. Instead, it appears to argue that Congress can simply grant full legal “personhood” status to fetuses under the 14th Amendment because Roe left open “the difficult question of when life begins.” This is not a correct reading of the Roe decision, however. The Roe opinion is unambiguous that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

Whether one agrees with this opinion or not, Congress does not have the power to flout the Supreme Court’s constitutional decisions simply because it does not like them. As ThinkProgress explained when a similar proposal was floated last year by Princeton Professor Robert George, “[i]n City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court held that Congress is not allowed to simply declare that the 14th Amendment means whatever they want it to mean and then use that declaration to pass enforcement legislation — Congress can only pass laws enforcing existing 14th Amendment rights.”

Just as importantly, there is something very bizarre about a conservative stalwart like Rand Paul insisting that obeying the Supreme Court is optional at exactly the same time conservatives are trying to impose much of their policy agenda upon the nation by judicial decree. Presumably, Paul would be outraged if President Obama simply refused to obey a Supreme Court decision striking down part of the Affordable Care Act or if elections officials were to ban corporations from trying to buy elections despite the justices’ decision in Citizens United. Yet, if Roe v. Wade is as optional as Paul appears to think that it is, than there is no reason why Obama should feel obliged to obey conservatives’ pet decisions either.