May, 13 2015, 08:45am EDT
Politicians Should be Protecting, not Jeopardizing Women's Lives and Health
Nationwide 20-Week Abortion Ban in Congress
WASHINGTON
Statement of Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation (NAF):
Today, the House of Representatives will vote on a blatantly unconstitutional nationwide ban on abortion care after 20 weeks (H.R. 36), which is a threat to women's lives and health, and at odds with medical standards of care.
This bill was introduced in January 2015 and pulled from floor consideration at the eleventh hour because its extreme policies caused controversy even among anti-choice politicians. Now, its sponsors have put forth a new version of the bill - purporting to "fix" the bill's most dangerous clauses. However, the new version of H.R. 36 is even worse than the prior version, revealing that there is only one thing that extreme anti-choice politicians can agree upon: denying women accessible medical care.
There are many reasons why a woman might need abortion care after 20 weeks, and she should be able to make that decision with those she trusts. This nationwide ban will affect women like:
Niecy* from Florida. Niecy was raped by a man she thought was her friend. When she realized she was pregnant due to the rape, she knew immediately that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy. As a full-time student, Niecy didn't have any income, and she couldn't tell her mom because she knew her mom would try to force her to keep the pregnancy due to her mom's anti-choice religious beliefs. Niecy spent two months trying to raise enough money to pay for her procedure. She had nothing to pawn or sell and was so desperate she even asked her rapist for money to pay for the abortion, but he refused to help her. When Niecy was past 20-weeks, she was finally put in touch with the NAF Hotline and other funds who were able to provide the financial help she needed. Niecy was then finally able to get the abortion care she desperately wanted and had been trying to obtain.
Gloria* from Washington. Gloria had just moved in with her parents in order to financially support them when she was faced with an unwanted pregnancy. She was fortunate to be working, but she was only making minimum wage, had no paid sick leave, and was still in her 90-day new job probationary period. Even after receiving her paycheck, she didn't have enough funds to continue supporting her family, travel to the nearest abortion care provider about three hours away, and pay for the procedure itself. Eventually, Gloria decided to not pay some of her other bills in order to have enough funds to cover her travel and care, but then she ran into another barrier: her boss. Because the provider was more than 150 miles away, Gloria needed to take time off of work, but her employer wouldn't allow her to do so. Her situation placed the job she desperately needed in jeopardy. Fortunately, her boss eventually relented and Gloria was finally able to obtain the abortion care she needed post 20 weeks, while keeping her job.
Amy* and her husband Chris* from South Carolina who were very excited about their pregnancy. Amy's pregnancy was going as planned, with regular healthy check-ups. However, during the scheduled 20-week ultrasound, the couple received the devastating news that their fetus had a structural and lethal abnormality, Trisomy 18. They were advised to go in for further genetic testing. The results to confirm this diagnosis took an additional 10-14 days, so Amy was past 20 weeks gestation when she made the decision to obtain abortion care.
With a nationwide 20-week ban, women like Niecy, Gloria, and Amy would not be able to make the decisions that were right for themselves and their families.
This bill would deny abortion care to a woman even if her health care provider determined that abortion care was her best medical option. It would also force a woman to wait until severe medical conditions became life threatening before she could obtain the abortion care she needed. NAF members know firsthand how this bill could harm their patients:
"Doctors must make decisions in urgent, complex medical situations based on medical knowledge and experience, not under fear of criminal prosecution. One of my patients required an abortion at 21 weeks for a pregnancy complicated by twin-twin transfusion syndrome with ruptured membranes. Left untreated, my patient could have easily developed an infection and died, leaving her other children orphaned. Politicians should not force doctors into the untenable position of having to consider how close to death their patients must be before they can provide medically necessary care without fear of prosecution under a law like H.R. 36.," said NAF's Medical Director Matthew Reeves, MD, MPH, FACOG.
"Proponents of the bill claim that abortion care is never necessary to save a woman's life. This claim is untrue. My service frequently receives referrals from Northwestern's Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine and other high risk pregnancy services throughout the Chicago area. One of the more frequent reasons for referral is preterm rupture of membranes with chorioamnionitis, an intrauterine infection which can develop at any time during pregnancy. Since antibiotics will not sufficiently penetrate the endometrial cavity containing the baby, the treatment for this condition is to evacuate the uterus. If the infection occurs at term, we deliver the baby. If the condition occurs before 24 weeks, we must abort the pregnancy lest the patient becomes septic and dies. Over my years of practice, I have had many patients who would have died without access to abortion in this situation," said NAF Member Cassing Hammond, MD, from Chicago, IL.
Furthermore, this bill would impose nationwide federal criminal penalties, including five years in jail, on medical professionals if they provide abortion care in violation of this bill. These harsh penalties would have the effect of chilling the provision of abortion care in the United States, which is in fact one of the goals of the bills' supporters.
The decision to seek abortion care is one that is best made by a woman in consultation with her health care provider and those she chooses to involve. Congress should not pass laws that disregard the Constitution or the real circumstances and complications women can face during pregnancy. Politicians should be protecting, not jeopardizing women's lives and health.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers.Our members include individuals, private and non-profit clinics, Planned Parenthood affiliates, women's health centers, physicians' offices, and hospitals who together care for approximately half the women who choose abortion in the U.S. and Canada each year. Our members also include public hospitals and both public and private clinics in Mexico City and private clinics in Colombia.
LATEST NEWS
House Dems Unveil Sweeping Bill to Protect Worker Rights and Safety
"This bill will help level the playing field and, once again, restore the balance of power between workers and their employers," said Rep. Bobby Scott.
Jul 26, 2024
A group of Democratic U.S. House members on Friday unveiled legislation "aimed at bolstering protections for America's workers and ensuring accountability for employers who flout labor and employment laws."
The Labor Enforcement to Securely (LET'S) Protect Workers Act was introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)—the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce—and House Labor Caucus Co-Chairs Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), and Steven Horsford (D-Nev.).
The bill's sponsors said their legislation is based on the premise that "employment laws are a promise to our nation's workers" meant to "secure the most basic rights of work."
"That promise is broken," they contended. "Recent shocking revelations about massive increases in the number of children illegally overworked and trafficked into dangerous jobs—just over 85 years since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was enacted to eliminate that very problem—is the latest example of the ways that this promise to America's workers is broken."
Across the U.S., Republican state lawmakers have been advancing legislation to remove restrictions on child labor, despite several high-profile workplace deaths of minors. At the federal level, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) last year introduced a bill that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work in the logging industry.
The LET'S Protect Workers Act sponsors highlighted rampant wage theft and overtime violations, workplace injuries, and union-busting by employers who "know that even if a resource-starved Department of Labor catches a violation, the penalties are a mere slap on the wrist."
"People should be able to come home at the end of the day—alive, well, in one piece, and with all the wages they worked hard to earn," the lawmakers asserted. "Children should be in schools, not dangerous workplaces, and workers should be able to organize a union without interference or the threat of retaliation from their employers."
According to House Education and Workforce Committee Democrats, if passed, the LET'S Protect Workers Act would:
- Increase civil monetary penalties for violations of child labor, minimum wage and overtime, worker health and safety, and farmworker protection standards;
- Improve mine safety and reliable funding of black lung benefits through new and increased civil monetary penalties and the option to shut down scofflaw operators;
- Set new penalties for retaliation against workers who exercise their family and medical leave rights;
- Strengthen enforcement of mental health parity requirements for employer-sponsored health plans;
- Close a loophole that allows employers to escape penalties for failing to keep records of workplace injuries if [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration] does not detect the violation within six months; and
- Create new penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, consistent with the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.
"Every American should be fairly compensated and be able to return home safely at the end of the day," Scott said in a statement Friday. "Unfortunately, shortcomings in our labor laws enable unethical employers to exploit workers, endanger children, and suppress the right to organize—with little accountability."
"That's why I'm proud to introduce the LET'S Protect Workers Act, which will hold bad actors accountable and strengthen penalties for labor law violations," he added. "This bill will help level the playing field and, once again, restore the balance of power between workers and their employers."
In a joint statement, Dingell, Horsford, Norcross, and Pocan said that "the lack of meaningful enforcement makes it all too easy for bad faith actors to get away with illegally violating workers' rights—from firing workers for organizing a union, to allowing children to work overnight shifts, or jeopardizing workers' safety by ignoring workplace regulations."
"We're proud to join Ranking Member Scott in introducing this bill to crack down on unscrupulous employers and to ensure that workers receive the protections they deserve," the lawmakers added.
Earlier this month, nearly 50 labor organizations led by the AFL-CIO and representing a wide range of U.S. workers urged congressional Democrats to resist Republican efforts to roll back rules enacted by the Biden administration to protect worker rights amid relentless attacks by abusive employers.
Specifically, the labor groups warned that Republicans are trying to use the Congressional Review Act—which was enacted to strengthen oversight of federal rulemaking—to overturn pro-worker rules enacted by the Department of Labor and other government bodies.
Meanwhile, Republicans including former President Donald Trump—the 2024 GOP nominee—have been trying to woo U.S. workers with proposals including a tax exemption for tipped employees panned as a "
hollow promise" by experts and by inviting Teamsters president Sean O'Brien to speak at the Republican National Convention last week.
In response to Republicans' dubious courting of U.S. labor, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas)—who is a co-sponsor of the LET'S Protect Workers Act—recently called for holding what would be a largely symbolic vote on the PRO Act. The bill was revived last year by Scott and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and, if passed, would expand labor protections including the right to organize and collectively bargain.
"If Republicans wanna talk like they're pro-worker, then let's have a vote on the PRO Act next week," Casar
said on social media last week. "Let's see which politicians are for unions and which ones are all talk. Dems are ready to vote, how about you guys?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Urges War Crimes Probe of Landmines in Russian-Occupied Ukraine
"In every region in Ukraine that was formerly occupied by Russia, we have seen evidence of civilians killed and injured by antipersonnel mines left behind by Russian forces," said one researcher.
Jul 26, 2024
Amnesty International on Friday demanded a "prompt, thorough, independent, and impartial investigation" into the use of antipersonnel landmines, "which litter territories in Ukraine formerly and currently occupied by Russian forces."
The Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor says that Ukraine is "severely contaminated" with antipersonnel landmines, which Russia's troops have used since 2014, but particularly since Russian President Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion in February 2022.
"Landmines have been documented in 11 of Ukraine's 27 regions: Chernihiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Kyiv, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, and Zaporizhzhia," according to the monitor's latest update, published in November. "Russian forces have used at least 13 types of antipersonnel mines in Ukraine since February 2022."
Ukraine is a state party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction of 1997 but lacks legislation to enforce its implementation. Human Rights Watch last summer gathered evidence of the Ukrainian military's use of the banned mines. Russia is not a party to the treaty.
Patrick Thompson, a Ukraine researcher at Amnesty, said Friday that "in every region in Ukraine that was formerly occupied by Russia, we have seen evidence of civilians killed and injured by antipersonnel mines left behind by Russian forces."
"They are a daily, deadly threat to civilians. Some have been deliberately placed in civilian homes where they maim and kill," Thompson highlighted. "There must be an effective investigation into all such incidents as possible war crimes."
The group shared just one survivor's story of encountering a mine:
In March 2022, Russian forces evicted Oleksandr* (not his real name) and his mother from their flat in Snihurivka, in the region of Mykolaiv. A Russian military unit took over the entire apartment block until it was forced to withdraw following fierce fighting around Snihurivka in November 2022.
After the Russian retreat, Oleksandr returned to the apartment block to assess how badly it had been damaged. Upon entering the basement, he stepped on a disguised PFM-1 antipersonnel mine that had been placed under wooden planks. The mine exploded, Oleksandr fell, and landed on other disguised mines that had apparently, had been deliberately placed to injure or kill anyone entering the building. He lost both his left leg and arm in the incident.
“The deminers working to clear Ukraine of this threat are carrying out painstaking, dangerous work every day," Thompson noted. "While the scale of the problem is undeniably huge, the biggest obstacle to clearing Ukraine of landmines is Russia's ongoing aggression."
Thompson called on the international community to "commit to sustained financial and technical assistance to help Ukraine get rid of a danger that continues to wreck lives and livelihoods," and to continue fighting for an end to the use of the weapons.
"Countries must uphold the ban on the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of antipersonnel mines worldwide," he said. "There must be an end to the use of such indiscriminate weapons."
The most recent report from the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine states that the war has killed at least 11,284 civilians there since 2022 and injured another 22,594—though the actual tallies are believed to be "considerably higher."
"The number of civilian casualties is likely particularly undercounted in cities such as Mariupol (Donetsk region), Lysychansk, Popasna, and Sievierodonetsk (Luhansk region), where there was protracted intensive fighting at the start of the armed attack in 2022," according to the report.
While most of the deaths and injuries in Ukraine are attributed to "explosive weapons with wide area effects," the U.N. report accounts for at least 373 deaths and 855 injuries from "mines and explosive remnants of war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
G20 Nations Take 'Important Step' Toward Fair Taxation of Ultra-Rich
"Our proposal for a common minimum tax on billionaires is now on the map. G20 finance ministers have started to engage with it—and there is no going back," said progressive economist Gabriel Zucman.
Jul 26, 2024
Despite pushback from the United States delegation, finance ministers at a meeting of the G20 countries in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday agreed on the need to develop a global taxation system in which the richest in the world are taxed at a higher rate—potentially unlocking hundreds of billions of dollars annually to help close the international wealth gap.
Ahead of the G20 Summit scheduled for November, which Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's government will host, the finance officials met this week to discuss economic issues and ultimately agreed to start a "dialogue on fair and progressive taxation, including of ultra-high-net-worth individuals."
The Lula government pushed for a proposal by progressive economist Gabriel Zucman, who serves as a G20 adviser and is a professor of economics at University of California, Berkeley.
Zucman's proposal calls for a minimum 2% tax on the fortunes of the world's roughly 3,000 wealthiest billionaires, which could raise approximately $250 billion globally per year.
"With full respect to tax sovereignty, we will seek to engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed," the ministers wrote in a declaration that was viewed by Politico.
"Finally, the richest people are being told they can't game the tax system or avoid paying their fair share. Governments have for too long been complicit in helping the ultra-rich pay little or zero tax."
The agreement to discuss higher taxes for the rich was reached despite objections from Germany and the U.S., whose treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, said that "tax policy is very difficult to coordinate globally."
"We don't see a need or really think it's desirable to try to negotiate a global agreement on that," Yellen said at a press conference before the ministers met Thursday evening. "We think that all countries should make sure that their taxation systems are fair and progressive."
Although the agreement only states that countries will discuss the need for the wealthy to pay their fair share to help fight poverty and fund public education and other services, the global anti-poverty group Oxfam International said the meeting represented "serious global progress."
"For the first time in history, the world's largest economies have agreed to cooperate to tax the ultra-rich," said Susana Ruiz, tax policy lead for Oxfam. "Finally, the richest people are being told they can't game the tax system or avoid paying their fair share. Governments have for too long been complicit in helping the ultra-rich pay little or zero tax. Massive fortunes afford the world's ultra-rich outsized influence and power, which they wield to shield, stash, and supersize their wealth, undercutting democracy and widening inequality."
An Oxfam study released ahead of this week's meetingfound that the richest 1% of people in the world increased their fortunes by $42 trillion over the past decade, while taxation fell to "historically" low rates.
Ruiz called on G20 heads of state to "go further than their finance ministers" at the G20 Summit in November "and back concrete coordination: agreeing on a new global standard that taxes the ultra-rich at a rate high enough to close the gap between them and the rest of us."
"Brazil has kickstarted a truly global approach to tax the ultra-rich. But the work is just beginning and international cooperation is crucial," said Ruiz, adding that the task of ensuring the wealthiest people in the world are taxed fairly must not be left up to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—"the club of mostly rich countries."
Zucman expressed hope that the agreement between the G20 finance ministers marked a "historic" moment, and called it "an important step in the right direction."
"Our proposal for a common minimum tax on billionaires is now on the map. G20 finance ministers have started to engage with it—and there is no going back," said Zucman. "In its declaration, the G20 finance ministers commit to important preliminary steps. They need to do more and commit to a coordinated minimum tax on the super-rich. We know that it is practically doable—we know the solutions exist. And I'm confident, because there is overwhelming popular demand everywhere to get there."
"The status quo, in which the biggest winners from globalization are allowed to enjoy the lowest tax rates, is simply not sustainable," said Zucman.
The findings released this week by Oxfam highlighted polling that "consistently" found people across the world support raising taxes on the richest individuals.
"Eighty percent of Indians, 85% of Brazilians and 69% of people polled across 34 countries in Africa support increasing taxes on the rich," said the group. "Nearly three-quarters of millionaires polled in G20 countries support higher taxes on wealth, and over half think extreme wealth is a 'threat to democracy.'"
The Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT) applauded the agreement and called on the G20 to "go further in [the] fight to tax the rich."
"To take this forward, G20 should support work on this at the Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation currently being negotiated at the United Nations," said Jayati Ghosh, co-chair of the ICRICT.
A U.N. committee is scheduled to submit "terms of reference" regarding a tax convention framework in August, and a final vote on the framework is expected by the end of 2025.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular