Students and activists have filed complaints alleging that four colleges and universities failed to follow federal laws requiring them to report sexual assault crimes and gender discrimination cases, attorney Gloria Allred announced at a press conference Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times' "L.A. Now" reports.

Activists Accuse Colleges of Not Responding to Sexual Assault Complaints

May 24, 2013 — Students and activists have filed complaints alleging that four colleges and universities failed to follow federal laws requiring them to report sexual assault crimes and gender discrimination cases, attorney Gloria Allred announced at a press conference Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times' "L.A. Now" reports.

The new complaints cited Dartmouth College, Swarthmore College, University of California-Berkeley and the University of Southern California, while earlier complaints named Occidental College and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The filings allege the colleges did not protect female students from discrimination under Title IX and failed to report sexual assault crimes under the Jeanne Clery Act.

Allred said that the complainants are asking the Department of Education to investigate the complaints and "take appropriate actions to force these colleges to comply with the law or risk losing their federal funding" (Castellanos, "L.A. Now," Los Angeles Times, 5/22).

Issues related to on-campus sexual assaults have been gaining national interest since the Department of Education in April 2011 released updated guidelines on how schools should handle sexual assault allegations. This spring, a group representing about 50 schools formed an informal national network to raise awareness about Title IX protections, called Know Your IX (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/1).

Colleges Respond to Allegations

According to a statement from USC's Division of Student Affairs, the university "thoroughly investigate[s] and take[s] appropriate disciplinary, as well as interim remedial, action," but the university system does not "take the place of the judicial system." Any student "has the option of reporting [a crime] to the Los Angeles Police Department," the statement said.

UC-Berkeley spokesperson Janet Gilmore on Wednesday said the school "takes sexual assault very seriously and we are constantly working to strengthen our efforts to prevent such acts from occurring and to thoroughly report and investigate such matters when they arise."

She added, "We also seek to ensure that students receive the counseling and the support services they need when coping with such a difficult ordeal" ("L.A. Now," Los Angeles Times, 5/22).

In a Washington Post satire piece, Alta Charo -- a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- makes the case for legislation that would regulate pregnancy similar to the way that antiabortion-rights laws restrict that procedure.

Washington Post Satire Piece Proposes Pregnancy Regulations Similar to Abortion Restrictions

May 30, 2013 — In a Washington Post satire piece, Alta Charo -- a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- makes the case for legislation that would regulate pregnancy similar to the way that antiabortion-rights laws restrict that procedure.

Charo writes, "[W]hile states give such solicitous attention to women planning to have an abortion, they ignore the needs of women planning to give birth." Charo's fictitious Defense of Motherhood Act "would extend existing protections, with small modifications as necessary."

She explains, "In the interest of safety, DOMA would insist that all prenatal care be provided by licensed physicians (not nurses or midwives) in medical offices fully equipped to handle obstetric emergencies -- even if that means having to wait longer for appointments, pay more or drive for hours." Charo adds, "To ensure that the decision to go through with a pregnancy is fully considered, there would be a 72-hour waiting period between the time a pregnant woman first sees a doctor and the time she can get prenatal care."

Charo's bill also would require physicians "to inform pregnant women about the risks of childbirth and motherhood," as well as "emphasize that working women in the United States can expect to see their wages drop 9% to 16% for each child and that having a child makes it significantly less likely that an unmarried woman will ever marry."

Charo continues that DOMA would protect women from being "coerced by partners, family members or clergy into bearing a child" by requiring "all women be interviewed about the circumstances of conception and their motives for continuing with pregnancy."

Finally, it would prohibit prenatal care for a minor unless a parent signs "a statement acknowledging the limited life prospects and economic opportunities for teen mothers," she writes.

Charo concludes, "All this and more has long been guaranteed to their sisters who are ending their pregnancies in abortion," adding, "It's a matter of simple fairness that we treat mothers-to-be just as lovingly" (Charo, Washington Post, 5/24).

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge a 2011 Arizona law (HB 2442) that prohibits abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, the AP/ABC News reports.

Lawsuit Challenges Ariz. Law on Abortions Based on Sex, Race of Fetus

May 30, 2013 — The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge a 2011 Arizona law (HB 2442) that prohibits abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, the AP/ABC News reports.

The law makes it a felony for anyone to knowingly perform or finance an abortion sought because of the fetus' sex or race. It also requires physicians to question abortion patients about their reasons for seeking the procedure and sign an affidavit swearing that the fetus' sex or race is not a factor (Christie, AP/ABC News, 5/30). The affidavit is then included in a woman's medical records and can be accessed by the state medical board and prosecutors.

No one has been prosecuted under the Arizona law (Fischer, Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30). North Dakota and Kansas have enacted similar laws, but they have not yet been enforced.

Details of ACLU Suit

ACLU of Arizona filed the suit on behalf of two not-for-profit organizations, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Maricopa County branch and the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum.

In the suit, ACLU argues that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Dan Pochoda -- an ACLU lawyer -- explained that the "long history of jurisprudence ... says laws passed with a discriminatory intent and racial stereotypes cannot stand, period." He added that "it is clear from the legislative history that that was the basis for the decision-making by the Legislature and the governor in this case" (AP/ABC News, 5/30).

ACLU pinpointed arguments made by state Rep. Steve Montenegro (R) when he proposed the law. According to ACLU, Montenegro claimed that abortion rates among black women are higher than among other groups and that women in Asian countries are far more likely to abort a female fetus than a male fetus.

ACLU said no evidence was presented during legislative hearings or floor debate that women in Arizona had abortions because of racial motivations or sex preference. The organization also pointed out that the majority of abortions performed in the state are completed before the sex of the fetus can be determined.

According to the suit, the law's "purpose is to reduce the rate or number of black and API (Asian and Pacific Islander) women who have abortions, but not women of any other race" (Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30).

Montenegro, NAPAWF Respond to Lawsuit

Montenegro said, "This [law] has to do with protecting the dignity of life and not allowing abortions to be performed based on the sex of the baby or the race of the baby" (AP/ABC News, 5/30). He added that it is "unfortunate" that people consider the law to be racist and that the law is not based on a belief that women of any particular group are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

Meanwhile, NAPAWF Executive Director Miriam Yeung in a statement said that the legislation "turns Asian-American women in Arizona into suspects" (Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30). She added, "This law is clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing that purports to be about achieving equality for women when in reality it's an attempt to control our reproductive decisio[n]-making" (AP/ABC News, 5/30).

We've compiled some of the most thought-provoking commentaries from around the Web. Catch up on the conversation with bloggers from Time, Care2 and more.

Blogs Comment on Funding for Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Emergency Contraception Lawsuit, More

May 28, 2013 — We've compiled some of the most thought-provoking commentaries from around the Web. Catch up on the conversation with bloggers from Time, Care2 and more.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: "How the Military Can Change the Culture of Assault," Rajiv Srinivasan, Time's "Ideas": "The only way to keep bad leaders from sexually harassing and assaulting their subordinates is to keep them from being leaders in the first place," writes Srinivasan, an alumnus of West Point and veteran of the war in Afghanistan. He calls for "an overhaul in how the military selects and promotes its ranks," such as a recent proposal by Joint Chiefs Chair General Martin Dempsey to launch "360-degree performance evaluations whereby subordinates would be able to weigh in and a candidate's character would also come under scrutiny." Srinivasan adds, "Implementing 360-degree evaluations will fly against centuries of military tradition, and would inherently call foul on the promotion mechanisms that elevated our current leaders in the first place. But it's the only way for our soldiers to bring forth the problems they see in our ranks that senior leaders cannot" (Srinivasan, "Ideas," Time, 5/27).

What others are saying about violence against women:

~ "Hey Facebook: Stop Defending Violence Against Women," Kathleen Jercich, Care2.

ADOLESCENT HEALTH: "Illinois Bans Abstinence-Only Sex Ed: 'In Fantasy Land, We Teach Our Kids Abstinence,'" Tara Culp-Ressler, Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress": Under a measure (HB 2675) passed by the Illinois Legislature last week, state schools will be required to include medically accurate information in sex education classes and barred from using abstinence-only curricula, Culp-Ressler writes. She adds that the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Linda Holmes (D), was right when she said teens need more information to safeguard their sexual health. Culp-Ressler notes that 70% of U.S. teens have had sex by age 19, adding that 80% of evangelical Christians report having sex before marriage. When "young people become sexually active, they often don't understand how to effectively protect themselves," because of poor sex education, she writes, adding that such classes "often mislead students about the facts of contraception" (Culp-Ressler, "ThinkProgress," Center for American Progress, 5/24).

What others are saying about adolescent health:

~ "U.S. Teen Birth Rates at All-Time Low," Ponta Abadi, Ms. Magazine blog.

20-WEEK BANS: "Congressman: Women Should Be Forced To Give Birth To Fetuses With No Brain Function," Culp-Ressler, Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress": Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) on Thursday told a woman testifying during a hearing on a 20-week abortion ban that she should have carried her non-viable fetus to term instead of having an abortion, Culp-Ressler writes. Christy Zink was testifying against a bill (HR 1797) that would impose the ban on women in the District of Columbia. Zink obtained an abortion at 21 weeks of pregnancy when doctors found that her fetus was missing a large portion of its brain and had little chance for survival, Culp-Ressler explains. In her testimony, Zink refuted the notion that the bill would prevent pain, stating that her baby would have been in "near-constant pain" if it had been born. Gohmert countered that "it's a more educated decision if the child is in front of you to make those decisions" (Culp-Ressler, "ThinkProgress," Center for American Progress, 5/24).

CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS: "North Carolina To Give Quarter of a Million Dollars in Women's Health Funding to Deceptive 'Clinics,'" Robin Marty, RH Reality Check: A state budget proposal before the North Carolina Senate would divert $250,000 from the North Carolina's Women's Health Fund -- where it is used to "provide medical care and contraceptive coverage for poor and uninsured women who do not qualify for Medicaid" -- to the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship, "an umbrella group for about half of the state's crisis pregnancy centers," Marty writes. Marty notes that while CPCF says it aims to provide factual and unbiased information to pregnant women, one of its partners -- Care Net -- states in materials that affiliates "must agree not to 'recommend, provide, or refer single women for contraceptives'" and that married women, along with their husbands, should be urged to seek counsel from "'their pastor and/or physician.'" Marty writes that women's health groups -- including NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina and Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina -- "are incensed the politicians would strip funds meant to prevent unintended pregnancies and reallocate them to deceptive CPCs" (Marty, RH Reality Check, 5/24).

EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: "U.S. Plan for a Plan B Review," Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog: Denniston outlines the ramifications of the ongoing legal dispute over U.S. District Judge Edward Korman's April ruling that "FDA must lift all restrictions on access to either the one-pill version of Plan B or the earlier, two-pill version." The order has not taken effect pending an appeal before a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which begins hearing arguments on Tuesday. The Obama administration in a brief filed on Friday suggested that if Korman's ruling were overturned, FDA would examine access to "two-pill Plan B generics as entirely separate from access to the one-pill 'Plan B One-Step,'" leaving access to that version of EC "quite uncertain for some time," Denniston explains. However, if an appeals court leaves Korman's order intact, it "could mean unlimited over-the-counter access to the most popular Plan B version," the one-pill version. Women's health advocates argue that sending the issue back to FDA "would only prolong the denial of access to younger females, and would continue a drugstore regime that would … deny many women -- even fully eligible under FDA rules to obtain the drug any access to the contraceptive" (Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 5/26).

CRIMINALIZING PREGNANCY: "Report on the 'Crack Baby' Myth Serves as Reminder of the Risks of Prosecuting Pregnant Women," Kelli Garcia, National Women's Law Center's "Womenstake": Despite fears about the health of infants born to women who used illicit drugs during pregnancy, a "recent New York Times 'Retro Report' video revisited the crack baby hysteria and found no evidence that these dire predictions came true," writes Garcia, senior counsel with the NWLC. Garcia adds that "these findings ... should remind prosecutors and judges that the causal link between drug use and a specific pregnancy outcome is speculative, at best." She highlights an ongoing trial of Nina Buckhalter, who tested positive for drugs after a stillbirth and was charged with manslaughter. Garcia argues that allowing the prosecution to continue "under these circumstances would open the door to prosecutions of women who experience a stillbirth after engaging in [a] whole range of activities during pregnancy," such as drinking alcohol or refusing a caesarean section. Noting that "punitive measures" only "discourage women from seeking prenatal care and drug-treatment for fear of being prosecuted," Garcia writes that the Times report "should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when people rush to judgment before all the information is in" (Garcia, "Womenstake," NWLC, 5/24).

The Salvadoran Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an appeal by a woman to obtain an abortion, even though doctors said her life is at risk and the fetus is not viable, CBS News reports.

Salvadoran Supreme Court Denies Abortion for Woman With Life-Threatening Pregnancy

May 30, 2013 — The Salvadoran Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an appeal by a woman to obtain an abortion, even though doctors said her life is at risk and the fetus is not viable, CBS News reports (Hartogs, CBS News, 5/29).

The lawsuit involves a 22-year-old woman who has lupus -- a chronic immune disorder -- as well as kidney failure. Ultrasound images show the fetus has a fatal condition called anencephaly, in which much of the brain fails to develop.

A medical committee at the maternity hospital where the woman -- known as Beatriz -- is being treated said the fetus would not survive outside of the womb and recommended an abortion because her health "will certainly get worse as the pregnancy advances."

The woman and her doctors could face up to eight years in prison if an abortion is performed (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/29).

Details of Ruling

In a 4-1 ruling, the court cited El Salvador's legal "absolute impediment to authorize the practice of abortion." The "rights of the mother cannot be privileged over those" of the fetus, the court said.

Although the judges acknowledged Beatriz's lupus, they said her disease is under control and that any threat to her life "is not actual or imminent, but rather eventual." They ordered continued monitoring of her condition, adding that doctors "could proceed with interventions" if complications arise that pose an imminent danger.

In the ruling, the court cited doctors who said "an eventual interruption of the pregnancy would not imply, much less have as an objective, the destruction of the fetus."

Response

Víctor Hugo Mata -- Beatriz's lawyer -- called the ruling "misogynistic" because it prioritizes the rights of a fetus with little chance of surviving over those of a sick woman with another child to care for. "There are many more cases like this," he noted, adding, "There has to be an integrated solution."

Abortion-rights groups also voiced disappointment with the decision. "This has hit us like a bucket of cold water," said Marta Maria Blandón, the Central American director for the international abortion-rights group Ipas. "We had the hope that the state would take a more humane decision," she added.

Meanwhile antiabortion-rights organizations praised the ruling. Julia Regina de Cardenal, director of Yes to Life, said, "Once again Salvadorans have given an example to the entire world that we defend the right to life of all human beings however small, poor, vulnerable or defenseless."

Next Steps

According to the New York Times, the next steps in the case are up to the Health Ministry's discretion. The health minister had previously said that Beatriz could travel abroad for an abortion, although she would have to obtain a humanitarian visa to enter the U.S.

Mata said that the trip would pose additional risks to Beatriz's health and that she should be treated in El Salvador (Zabludovsky/Palumbo, New York Times, 5/29). "The only way now is to go to the international courts," he said (CBS News, 5/29).

Just days after a federal appeals court struck down similar state legislation, a House subcommittee on Thursday heard testimony on a bill (HR 1797) that will be amended to establish a nationwide ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, Politico reports.

20-Week Abortion Ban Goes Before House Subcommittee

May 24, 2013 — Just days after a federal appeals court struck down similar state legislation, a House subcommittee on Thursday heard testimony on a bill (HR 1797) that will be amended to establish a nationwide ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, Politico reports.

The bill -- called the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act -- is sponsored by subcommittee Chair Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). It originally applied to only Washington, D.C., but Franks intends to expand it to apply nationwide in response to the case of illegal abortion provider Kermit Gosnell, who was recently convicted of three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of newborn infants, along with hundreds of other charges (Smith, Politico, 5/24).

Frank's office said the changes to the bill would be made during a markup that is expected next month. CQ Roll Call reports that it is unclear if the bill will be brought to the House floor or if it would pass. Last year, Franks introduced a similar bill (HR 3803) -- which applied only to Washington, D.C. -- but it failed to pass the House because it was considered under a procedure that requires bills to receive the support of at least two-thirds of members to pass (Attias, CQ Roll Call, 5/24).

During Thursday's hearing, Franks said, "Kermit Gosnell is not an anomaly in this Fortune 500 enterprise of killing unborn children," adding, "Rather, Kermit Gosnell is actually the true face of abortion on demand in America."

Supporters of 20-week abortion bans claim that fetuses can begin feeling pain at that point of development. The subcommittee called on Maureen Condic, a neurobiologist from the University of Utah School of Medicine, to testify in support of his bill. Condic said, "Fetuses at 20 weeks post-fertilization have an increase in stress hormones in response to painful stimuli that can be eliminated by appropriate anesthesia, just as for an adult."

Opponents' Arguments

Abortion-rights supporters provided documents from several women's health groups, led by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stating that the science on fetal pain is unclear and that most studies indicate fetuses are unlikely to feel pain before the third trimester, or about 28 weeks.

Congressional opponents of the bill also argued that it is unconstitutional because it conflicts with Supreme Court precedents.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) cited this week's appeals court ruling that struck down a similar ban (HB 2036) in Arizona. Nadler said, "A woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable." He added, "A prohibition on the exercise of that [right] is per se unconstitutional" (Rovner, "Shots," NPR, 5/23).

Nancy Northup -- president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the legal challenge against the Arizona law -- in a statement said, "It is no small irony that [Franks] is using the subcommittee on the Constitution to advance legislation attacking the firmly established constitutional rights of women." She added, "Everywhere that similarly unconstitutional laws have been challenged in the courts -- including Rep. Franks' home state of Arizona just this week -- they have been blocked before they could jeopardize women's health and lives" (Politico, 5/24).

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has been indirectly providing contraceptive and abortion coverage to thousands of unionized employees for over a decade, even as it pursues a lawsuit challenging federal rules that require its health plans to cover birth control, the New York Times reports.

N.Y. Archdiocese Funds Health Plan That Covers Contraception as Bishops Fight Federal Rules

May 28, 2013 — The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has been indirectly providing contraceptive and abortion coverage to thousands of unionized employees for over a decade, even as it pursues a lawsuit challenging federal rules that require its health plans to cover birth control, the New York Times reports (Otterman, New York Times, 5/26).

The federal contraceptive coverage rules, which are being implemented under the Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148), require that most health plans cover contraceptive services without copayments or other added costs. Religious entities such as churches and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirements.

In February, the Obama administration proposed an accommodation for other religiously affiliated employers that would ensure they do not have to pay for contraceptive coverage, but their health plans must provide it directly to beneficiaries at no cost. The accommodation was not extended to for-profit businesses (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/22).

In December, a U.S. District Judge ruled that the N.Y. Archdiocese and two other Catholic groups may proceed with a lawsuit challenging the federal rules (Women's Health Policy Report, 12/6/12).

Details of N.Y. Coverage

The archdiocese offers about 3,000 full-time employees at ArchCare -- also known as the Catholic Health Care System -- coverage for contraception and abortion through their membership in a health care workers' union called 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, according to David Bates, a spokesperson for the union.

ArchCare offers the same health insurance coverage that union employees would receive at more than 100 other not-for-profit hospitals and nursing homes in the New York area because the system is a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes, a multi-employer organization that negotiates with the union every few years for a joint labor contract. The employers do not directly pay for coverage; instead, they pay the union's National Benefits Fund in amounts equal to about 25% of each employee's base pay and those funds are then used to purchase the insurance.

According to the Times, in theory, ArchCare could have negotiated with the union to avoid covering the disputed services, in much the same way it has avoided offering those services for another 1,100 ArchCare employees by covering them through a self-insurance plan that is exempt from a 2002 state mandate requiring companies offer contraception.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan -- head of the Archdiocese of New York and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- has steadfastly rejected similar "arm's-length" arrangements offered by the Obama administration, including the current proposal to allow insurers to provide for the coverage directly, according to the New York Times.

Archdiocese, LVHH President Comment

Joseph Zwilling -- a spokesperson for the New York archdiocese -- said it "provide[s] the services under protest." He said that Cardinal John O'Connor objected to the coverage when ArchCare considered joining LVHH in the 1990s, but the cardinal then realized that "there was no other option if the Catholic Church was to continue to provide health care to these union-affiliated employees."

LVHH President Bruce McIver said that while some Catholic institutions expressed concern about the coverage in the mid- to late-1990s, "they just kind of stopped, from my perspective, paying attention to the issue." He explained that "the Catholics just said, you know, we are going to ignore the issue and pay into the fund and people are going to make their own choices about contraception and so forth."

According to the Times, some for-profit businesses challenging the federal contraceptive coverage rules also were until recently paying for contraception and abortion coverage (New York Times, 5/26).

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider Indiana's appeal of a lower court's injunction against a state law prohibiting the distribution of Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, NPR's "The Two-Way" reports.

Ruling Against Ind. Planned Parenthood Law Stands After Supreme Court Declines Case

May 29, 2013 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider Indiana's appeal of a lower court's injunction against a state law prohibiting the distribution of Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, NPR's "The Two-Way" reports (Totenberg, "The Two-Way," NPR, 5/28).

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012 upheld the injunction, which was originally issued by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in June 2011 and subsequently challenged by the state.

The appeals court upheld a core portion of Pratt's ruling that said Indiana cannot bar qualified Medicaid providers that also provide abortions from collecting Medicaid funds for any service. The law violates patients' right to choose their medical providers, the appeals court said (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/24/12).

Details of Appeal

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the state argued that taxpayers are subsidizing abortions when organizations such as Planned Parenthood receive Medicaid funding for other services. Even though federal law prohibits the use of federal funds for nearly all abortions, the state contended that the money "frees up" other money for the procedure, according to USA Today.

Planned Parenthood noted that abortions are paid for with private funds and argued that the Indiana law threatened access to other medical services, such as cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted infections (Wolf, USA Today, 5/29).

Similar Laws Blocked in Other States

According to "The Two-Way," more than a dozen other states have enacted or considered laws to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding.

The Indiana case is the first to reach the Supreme Court. Six federal courts have ruled that targeted defunding of certain Medicaid providers is illegal because it inappropriately interferes with a beneficiary's choice of provider ("The Two-Way," NPR, 5/28).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said, "Politicians in all 50 states should take note: Blocking Planned Parenthood from funding to provide preventive health care is both unlawful and deeply unpopular." She noted that similar laws have been struck down in Arizona, North Carolina, Kansas and Tennessee (USA Today, 5/29).

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) -- a candidate for governor -- has said he will not defend assertions by a GOP candidate for lieutenant governor that Planned Parenthood is racist, even though Cuccinelli himself has made similar allegations, Politico reports.

Candidates in Va. Gov. Race Imply Planned Parenthood is Racist

May 30, 2013 — Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) -- a candidate for governor -- has said he will not defend assertions by a GOP candidate for lieutenant governor that Planned Parenthood is racist, even though Cuccinelli himself has made similar allegations, Politico reports.

Last week, several online videos surfaced of E.W. Jackson (R) -- who is running for lieutenant governor -- including one in which he compares Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan. "The Democrat[ic] Party has created an unholy alliance between certain so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions," Jackson states, adding, "Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was."

Cuccinelli said he was "not going to defend" the statements, but Politico reports that he has implied in the past that Planned Parenthood has racist origins.

In a 2008 newsletter, he circulated a Washington Times letter to the editor that referenced Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, whom opponents of the organization sometimes claim had racist motivations for building abortion facilities in low-income areas with many black residents.

Cuccinelli referenced Sanger again in a 2011 speech at the Virginia Christian Alliance. "I would encourage those of you who are particularly pastoring in black churches -- look at the history of that movement," he said, adding, "Go read Margaret Sanger's letters about the Harlem Project, and what she wanted to do."

Anna Scholl, executive director of Progress VA, said Cuccinelli and Jackson "can't help themselves when it comes to outrageous attacks on women's health care access," adding that their comments "clearly demonstrate this ticket is unified in their dedication to vilifying women and their constitutional rights" (Schultheis, Politico, 5/28).

The California Assembly on Tuesday approved a measure (AB 154) that would allow nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician's assistants to perform aspiration abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, AP/San Jose Mercury News reports.

Calif. Assembly Passes Bill Allowing Non-Physician Clinicians To Perform Abortions

May 30, 2013 — The California Assembly on Tuesday approved a measure (AB 154) that would allow nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician's assistants to perform aspiration abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, AP/San Jose Mercury News reports. The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration.

Assembly member Toni Atkins (D), who proposed the bill, said it would expand abortion access to areas of the state that do not have abortion providers.

Opponents of the measure said allowing non-physician clinicians to provide abortions would increase risks to patients. Atkins responded that data from a pilot program in the state demonstrate that error rates are low among both physicians and non-physicians who perform abortions (AP/San Jose Mercury News, 5/28).

In a Washington Post satire piece, Alta Charo -- a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- makes the case for legislation that would regulate pregnancy similar to the way that antiabortion-rights laws restrict that procedure.

Washington Post Satire Piece Proposes Pregnancy Regulations Similar to Abortion Restrictions

May 30, 2013 — In a Washington Post satire piece, Alta Charo -- a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- makes the case for legislation that would regulate pregnancy similar to the way that antiabortion-rights laws restrict that procedure.

Charo writes, "[W]hile states give such solicitous attention to women planning to have an abortion, they ignore the needs of women planning to give birth." Charo's fictitious Defense of Motherhood Act "would extend existing protections, with small modifications as necessary."

She explains, "In the interest of safety, DOMA would insist that all prenatal care be provided by licensed physicians (not nurses or midwives) in medical offices fully equipped to handle obstetric emergencies -- even if that means having to wait longer for appointments, pay more or drive for hours." Charo adds, "To ensure that the decision to go through with a pregnancy is fully considered, there would be a 72-hour waiting period between the time a pregnant woman first sees a doctor and the time she can get prenatal care."

Charo's bill also would require physicians "to inform pregnant women about the risks of childbirth and motherhood," as well as "emphasize that working women in the United States can expect to see their wages drop 9% to 16% for each child and that having a child makes it significantly less likely that an unmarried woman will ever marry."

Charo continues that DOMA would protect women from being "coerced by partners, family members or clergy into bearing a child" by requiring "all women be interviewed about the circumstances of conception and their motives for continuing with pregnancy."

Finally, it would prohibit prenatal care for a minor unless a parent signs "a statement acknowledging the limited life prospects and economic opportunities for teen mothers," she writes.

Charo concludes, "All this and more has long been guaranteed to their sisters who are ending their pregnancies in abortion," adding, "It's a matter of simple fairness that we treat mothers-to-be just as lovingly" (Charo, Washington Post, 5/24).

The Salvadoran Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an appeal by a woman to obtain an abortion, even though doctors said her life is at risk and the fetus is not viable, CBS News reports.

Salvadoran Supreme Court Denies Abortion for Woman With Life-Threatening Pregnancy

May 30, 2013 — The Salvadoran Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an appeal by a woman to obtain an abortion, even though doctors said her life is at risk and the fetus is not viable, CBS News reports (Hartogs, CBS News, 5/29).

The lawsuit involves a 22-year-old woman who has lupus -- a chronic immune disorder -- as well as kidney failure. Ultrasound images show the fetus has a fatal condition called anencephaly, in which much of the brain fails to develop.

A medical committee at the maternity hospital where the woman -- known as Beatriz -- is being treated said the fetus would not survive outside of the womb and recommended an abortion because her health "will certainly get worse as the pregnancy advances."

The woman and her doctors could face up to eight years in prison if an abortion is performed (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/29).

Details of Ruling

In a 4-1 ruling, the court cited El Salvador's legal "absolute impediment to authorize the practice of abortion." The "rights of the mother cannot be privileged over those" of the fetus, the court said.

Although the judges acknowledged Beatriz's lupus, they said her disease is under control and that any threat to her life "is not actual or imminent, but rather eventual." They ordered continued monitoring of her condition, adding that doctors "could proceed with interventions" if complications arise that pose an imminent danger.

In the ruling, the court cited doctors who said "an eventual interruption of the pregnancy would not imply, much less have as an objective, the destruction of the fetus."

Response

Víctor Hugo Mata -- Beatriz's lawyer -- called the ruling "misogynistic" because it prioritizes the rights of a fetus with little chance of surviving over those of a sick woman with another child to care for. "There are many more cases like this," he noted, adding, "There has to be an integrated solution."

Abortion-rights groups also voiced disappointment with the decision. "This has hit us like a bucket of cold water," said Marta Maria Blandón, the Central American director for the international abortion-rights group Ipas. "We had the hope that the state would take a more humane decision," she added.

Meanwhile antiabortion-rights organizations praised the ruling. Julia Regina de Cardenal, director of Yes to Life, said, "Once again Salvadorans have given an example to the entire world that we defend the right to life of all human beings however small, poor, vulnerable or defenseless."

Next Steps

According to the New York Times, the next steps in the case are up to the Health Ministry's discretion. The health minister had previously said that Beatriz could travel abroad for an abortion, although she would have to obtain a humanitarian visa to enter the U.S.

Mata said that the trip would pose additional risks to Beatriz's health and that she should be treated in El Salvador (Zabludovsky/Palumbo, New York Times, 5/29). "The only way now is to go to the international courts," he said (CBS News, 5/29).

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge a 2011 Arizona law (HB 2442) that prohibits abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, the AP/ABC News reports.

Lawsuit Challenges Ariz. Law on Abortions Based on Sex, Race of Fetus

May 30, 2013 — The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge a 2011 Arizona law (HB 2442) that prohibits abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, the AP/ABC News reports.

The law makes it a felony for anyone to knowingly perform or finance an abortion sought because of the fetus' sex or race. It also requires physicians to question abortion patients about their reasons for seeking the procedure and sign an affidavit swearing that the fetus' sex or race is not a factor (Christie, AP/ABC News, 5/30). The affidavit is then included in a woman's medical records and can be accessed by the state medical board and prosecutors.

No one has been prosecuted under the Arizona law (Fischer, Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30). North Dakota and Kansas have enacted similar laws, but they have not yet been enforced.

Details of ACLU Suit

ACLU of Arizona filed the suit on behalf of two not-for-profit organizations, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Maricopa County branch and the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum.

In the suit, ACLU argues that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Dan Pochoda -- an ACLU lawyer -- explained that the "long history of jurisprudence ... says laws passed with a discriminatory intent and racial stereotypes cannot stand, period." He added that "it is clear from the legislative history that that was the basis for the decision-making by the Legislature and the governor in this case" (AP/ABC News, 5/30).

ACLU pinpointed arguments made by state Rep. Steve Montenegro (R) when he proposed the law. According to ACLU, Montenegro claimed that abortion rates among black women are higher than among other groups and that women in Asian countries are far more likely to abort a female fetus than a male fetus.

ACLU said no evidence was presented during legislative hearings or floor debate that women in Arizona had abortions because of racial motivations or sex preference. The organization also pointed out that the majority of abortions performed in the state are completed before the sex of the fetus can be determined.

According to the suit, the law's "purpose is to reduce the rate or number of black and API (Asian and Pacific Islander) women who have abortions, but not women of any other race" (Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30).

Montenegro, NAPAWF Respond to Lawsuit

Montenegro said, "This [law] has to do with protecting the dignity of life and not allowing abortions to be performed based on the sex of the baby or the race of the baby" (AP/ABC News, 5/30). He added that it is "unfortunate" that people consider the law to be racist and that the law is not based on a belief that women of any particular group are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

Meanwhile, NAPAWF Executive Director Miriam Yeung in a statement said that the legislation "turns Asian-American women in Arizona into suspects" (Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30). She added, "This law is clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing that purports to be about achieving equality for women when in reality it's an attempt to control our reproductive decisio[n]-making" (AP/ABC News, 5/30).

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge a 2011 Arizona law (HB 2442) that prohibits abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, the AP/ABC News reports.

Lawsuit Challenges Ariz. Law on Abortions Based on Sex, Race of Fetus

May 30, 2013 — The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge a 2011 Arizona law (HB 2442) that prohibits abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, the AP/ABC News reports.

The law makes it a felony for anyone to knowingly perform or finance an abortion sought because of the fetus' sex or race. It also requires physicians to question abortion patients about their reasons for seeking the procedure and sign an affidavit swearing that the fetus' sex or race is not a factor (Christie, AP/ABC News, 5/30). The affidavit is then included in a woman's medical records and can be accessed by the state medical board and prosecutors.

No one has been prosecuted under the Arizona law (Fischer, Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30). North Dakota and Kansas have enacted similar laws, but they have not yet been enforced.

Details of ACLU Suit

ACLU of Arizona filed the suit on behalf of two not-for-profit organizations, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Maricopa County branch and the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum.

In the suit, ACLU argues that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Dan Pochoda -- an ACLU lawyer -- explained that the "long history of jurisprudence ... says laws passed with a discriminatory intent and racial stereotypes cannot stand, period." He added that "it is clear from the legislative history that that was the basis for the decision-making by the Legislature and the governor in this case" (AP/ABC News, 5/30).

ACLU pinpointed arguments made by state Rep. Steve Montenegro (R) when he proposed the law. According to ACLU, Montenegro claimed that abortion rates among black women are higher than among other groups and that women in Asian countries are far more likely to abort a female fetus than a male fetus.

ACLU said no evidence was presented during legislative hearings or floor debate that women in Arizona had abortions because of racial motivations or sex preference. The organization also pointed out that the majority of abortions performed in the state are completed before the sex of the fetus can be determined.

According to the suit, the law's "purpose is to reduce the rate or number of black and API (Asian and Pacific Islander) women who have abortions, but not women of any other race" (Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30).

Montenegro, NAPAWF Respond to Lawsuit

Montenegro said, "This [law] has to do with protecting the dignity of life and not allowing abortions to be performed based on the sex of the baby or the race of the baby" (AP/ABC News, 5/30). He added that it is "unfortunate" that people consider the law to be racist and that the law is not based on a belief that women of any particular group are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

Meanwhile, NAPAWF Executive Director Miriam Yeung in a statement said that the legislation "turns Asian-American women in Arizona into suspects" (Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 5/30). She added, "This law is clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing that purports to be about achieving equality for women when in reality it's an attempt to control our reproductive decisio[n]-making" (AP/ABC News, 5/30).

The California Assembly on Tuesday approved a measure (AB 154) that would allow nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician's assistants to perform aspiration abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, AP/San Jose Mercury News reports.

Calif. Assembly Passes Bill Allowing Non-Physician Clinicians To Perform Abortions

May 30, 2013 — The California Assembly on Tuesday approved a measure (AB 154) that would allow nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician's assistants to perform aspiration abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, AP/San Jose Mercury News reports. The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration.

Assembly member Toni Atkins (D), who proposed the bill, said it would expand abortion access to areas of the state that do not have abortion providers.

Opponents of the measure said allowing non-physician clinicians to provide abortions would increase risks to patients. Atkins responded that data from a pilot program in the state demonstrate that error rates are low among both physicians and non-physicians who perform abortions (AP/San Jose Mercury News, 5/28).

In a Washington Post satire piece, Alta Charo -- a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- makes the case for legislation that would regulate pregnancy similar to the way that antiabortion-rights laws restrict that procedure.

Washington Post Satire Piece Proposes Pregnancy Regulations Similar to Abortion Restrictions

May 30, 2013 — In a Washington Post satire piece, Alta Charo -- a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- makes the case for legislation that would regulate pregnancy similar to the way that antiabortion-rights laws restrict that procedure.

Charo writes, "[W]hile states give such solicitous attention to women planning to have an abortion, they ignore the needs of women planning to give birth." Charo's fictitious Defense of Motherhood Act "would extend existing protections, with small modifications as necessary."

She explains, "In the interest of safety, DOMA would insist that all prenatal care be provided by licensed physicians (not nurses or midwives) in medical offices fully equipped to handle obstetric emergencies -- even if that means having to wait longer for appointments, pay more or drive for hours." Charo adds, "To ensure that the decision to go through with a pregnancy is fully considered, there would be a 72-hour waiting period between the time a pregnant woman first sees a doctor and the time she can get prenatal care."

Charo's bill also would require physicians "to inform pregnant women about the risks of childbirth and motherhood," as well as "emphasize that working women in the United States can expect to see their wages drop 9% to 16% for each child and that having a child makes it significantly less likely that an unmarried woman will ever marry."

Charo continues that DOMA would protect women from being "coerced by partners, family members or clergy into bearing a child" by requiring "all women be interviewed about the circumstances of conception and their motives for continuing with pregnancy."

Finally, it would prohibit prenatal care for a minor unless a parent signs "a statement acknowledging the limited life prospects and economic opportunities for teen mothers," she writes.

Charo concludes, "All this and more has long been guaranteed to their sisters who are ending their pregnancies in abortion," adding, "It's a matter of simple fairness that we treat mothers-to-be just as lovingly" (Charo, Washington Post, 5/24).

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) -- a candidate for governor -- has said he will not defend assertions by a GOP candidate for lieutenant governor that Planned Parenthood is racist, even though Cuccinelli himself has made similar allegations, Politico reports.

Candidates in Va. Gov. Race Imply Planned Parenthood is Racist

May 30, 2013 — Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) -- a candidate for governor -- has said he will not defend assertions by a GOP candidate for lieutenant governor that Planned Parenthood is racist, even though Cuccinelli himself has made similar allegations, Politico reports.

Last week, several online videos surfaced of E.W. Jackson (R) -- who is running for lieutenant governor -- including one in which he compares Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan. "The Democrat[ic] Party has created an unholy alliance between certain so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions," Jackson states, adding, "Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was."

Cuccinelli said he was "not going to defend" the statements, but Politico reports that he has implied in the past that Planned Parenthood has racist origins.

In a 2008 newsletter, he circulated a Washington Times letter to the editor that referenced Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, whom opponents of the organization sometimes claim had racist motivations for building abortion facilities in low-income areas with many black residents.

Cuccinelli referenced Sanger again in a 2011 speech at the Virginia Christian Alliance. "I would encourage those of you who are particularly pastoring in black churches -- look at the history of that movement," he said, adding, "Go read Margaret Sanger's letters about the Harlem Project, and what she wanted to do."

Anna Scholl, executive director of Progress VA, said Cuccinelli and Jackson "can't help themselves when it comes to outrageous attacks on women's health care access," adding that their comments "clearly demonstrate this ticket is unified in their dedication to vilifying women and their constitutional rights" (Schultheis, Politico, 5/28).

The Salvadoran Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an appeal by a woman to obtain an abortion, even though doctors said her life is at risk and the fetus is not viable, CBS News reports.

Salvadoran Supreme Court Denies Abortion for Woman With Life-Threatening Pregnancy

May 30, 2013 — The Salvadoran Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an appeal by a woman to obtain an abortion, even though doctors said her life is at risk and the fetus is not viable, CBS News reports (Hartogs, CBS News, 5/29).

The lawsuit involves a 22-year-old woman who has lupus -- a chronic immune disorder -- as well as kidney failure. Ultrasound images show the fetus has a fatal condition called anencephaly, in which much of the brain fails to develop.

A medical committee at the maternity hospital where the woman -- known as Beatriz -- is being treated said the fetus would not survive outside of the womb and recommended an abortion because her health "will certainly get worse as the pregnancy advances."

The woman and her doctors could face up to eight years in prison if an abortion is performed (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/29).

Details of Ruling

In a 4-1 ruling, the court cited El Salvador's legal "absolute impediment to authorize the practice of abortion." The "rights of the mother cannot be privileged over those" of the fetus, the court said.

Although the judges acknowledged Beatriz's lupus, they said her disease is under control and that any threat to her life "is not actual or imminent, but rather eventual." They ordered continued monitoring of her condition, adding that doctors "could proceed with interventions" if complications arise that pose an imminent danger.

In the ruling, the court cited doctors who said "an eventual interruption of the pregnancy would not imply, much less have as an objective, the destruction of the fetus."

Response

Víctor Hugo Mata -- Beatriz's lawyer -- called the ruling "misogynistic" because it prioritizes the rights of a fetus with little chance of surviving over those of a sick woman with another child to care for. "There are many more cases like this," he noted, adding, "There has to be an integrated solution."

Abortion-rights groups also voiced disappointment with the decision. "This has hit us like a bucket of cold water," said Marta Maria Blandón, the Central American director for the international abortion-rights group Ipas. "We had the hope that the state would take a more humane decision," she added.

Meanwhile antiabortion-rights organizations praised the ruling. Julia Regina de Cardenal, director of Yes to Life, said, "Once again Salvadorans have given an example to the entire world that we defend the right to life of all human beings however small, poor, vulnerable or defenseless."

Next Steps

According to the New York Times, the next steps in the case are up to the Health Ministry's discretion. The health minister had previously said that Beatriz could travel abroad for an abortion, although she would have to obtain a humanitarian visa to enter the U.S.

Mata said that the trip would pose additional risks to Beatriz's health and that she should be treated in El Salvador (Zabludovsky/Palumbo, New York Times, 5/29). "The only way now is to go to the international courts," he said (CBS News, 5/29).

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider Indiana's appeal of a lower court's injunction against a state law prohibiting the distribution of Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, NPR's "The Two-Way" reports.

Ruling Against Ind. Planned Parenthood Law Stands After Supreme Court Declines Case

May 29, 2013 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider Indiana's appeal of a lower court's injunction against a state law prohibiting the distribution of Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, NPR's "The Two-Way" reports (Totenberg, "The Two-Way," NPR, 5/28).

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012 upheld the injunction, which was originally issued by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in June 2011 and subsequently challenged by the state.

The appeals court upheld a core portion of Pratt's ruling that said Indiana cannot bar qualified Medicaid providers that also provide abortions from collecting Medicaid funds for any service. The law violates patients' right to choose their medical providers, the appeals court said (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/24/12).

Details of Appeal

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the state argued that taxpayers are subsidizing abortions when organizations such as Planned Parenthood receive Medicaid funding for other services. Even though federal law prohibits the use of federal funds for nearly all abortions, the state contended that the money "frees up" other money for the procedure, according to USA Today.

Planned Parenthood noted that abortions are paid for with private funds and argued that the Indiana law threatened access to other medical services, such as cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted infections (Wolf, USA Today, 5/29).

Similar Laws Blocked in Other States

According to "The Two-Way," more than a dozen other states have enacted or considered laws to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding.

The Indiana case is the first to reach the Supreme Court. Six federal courts have ruled that targeted defunding of certain Medicaid providers is illegal because it inappropriately interferes with a beneficiary's choice of provider ("The Two-Way," NPR, 5/28).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said, "Politicians in all 50 states should take note: Blocking Planned Parenthood from funding to provide preventive health care is both unlawful and deeply unpopular." She noted that similar laws have been struck down in Arizona, North Carolina, Kansas and Tennessee (USA Today, 5/29).

In response to actress Angelina Jolie's disclosure of her decision to undergo a preventive double mastectomy, a column and two opinion pieces discussed women's access to the genetic test that revealed Jolie's heightened risk of cancer.

Actress' Preventive Mastectomy Prompts Debate Over Access to Genetic Testing

May 29, 2013 — In response to actress Angelina Jolie's disclosure of her decision to undergo a preventive double mastectomy, a column and two opinion pieces discussed women's access to the genetic test that revealed Jolie's heightened risk of cancer. Summaries appear below.

~ Michelle Andrews, Kaiser Health News' "Insuring Your Health": "As women mull their options for genetic testing, screening and treatment for [breast cancer], one factor that can loom large is the extent to which their health insurance will cover whatever choices they make," writes Andrews. She notes that experts believe "[m]ost coverage is pretty good, ... and it's getting better under the Affordable Care Act," but also points out how some plans have "weak spots" or are "woefully inadequate." For example, while many plans cover genetic counseling and testing for women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, patients can still face significant out-of-pocket costs for the test, which is about $3,000. In addition, women "sometimes encounter coverage problems related to services they need" after treatment, such as a cap on physical therapy visits for women who develop lymphedema -- a chronic condition resulting in swelling and fluid retention (Andrews, "Insuring Your Health," Kaiser Health News, 5/27).

~ Gayle Sulik, CNN: Jolie "did mention that many women would not be able to afford the $3,000 to $4,000 test that led her to make the decision," but she "failed to say ... why the tests cost so much," writes Sulik, an author and founder of the Breast Cancer Consortium. Sulik explains that Myriad Genetics patented the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, making it the "only company that can conduct the test," and leading to a Supreme Court case that is expected to determine in June if "the genes cannot be patented because they are products of nature." She writes that after receiving the patents, Myriad launched a campaign "to convince consumers they need the test and get doctors to write the scripts," even though "most cases of breast or ovarian cancer are not related to BRCA mutations and less than 1% of American women are likely to have them." She argues that allowing the company to own the patents "stifles or even prevents innovation," adding, "When companies aggressively promote expensive and often unnecessary medical tests, it isn't always in the service of patients and good health" (Sulik, CNN, 5/28).

~ Marisa Weiss, Wall Street Journal: Although Jolie's genetic testing and mastectomy offer "a great opportunity to educate the public," the "insidious risk of ovarian cancer that these same genetic mutations pose has received far less attention," writes Weiss, director of breast radiation oncology at Lankenau Medical Center in Pennsylvania. Weiss explains that the lack of attention is partly because breast cancer is "far more prevalent than ovarian cancer," with only 3% of cancers in women starting in the ovaries and about 29% starting in the breast. However, "the risk of death is much higher" from ovarian cancer -- a 44% five-year survival rate, compared with 90% for breast cancer -- and early detection "is significantly better among breast cancer patients." Noting that "education is the first critical step," Weiss urges women at risk for the BRCA mutations to undergo genetic testing and encourages their doctors "to have open discussions" with them about their options, based on their "age, childbearing plans and the psychological and physical realities of these tough choices" (Weiss, Wall Street Journal, 5/27).