On June 22, 2009 National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) released to the public a letter with more than 100 signatories sent to the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate requesting that the Committee ask Judge Sonia Sotomayor and all future Supreme Court nominees: Is there a point in pregnancy when you believe women lose their civil rights? This letter, discussed in Rachel Roth's RhRealityCheck Commentary, addresses the harm that will result if abortion is outlawed and provides concrete examples of civil rights violations against pregnant women that undermine both maternal and fetal health and that would occur routinely if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

"Review of both civil and criminal cases since Roe v. Wade makes clear that what is at stake in each nomination to the Supreme Court is not only the right to choose abortion," said Lynn M. Paltrow, Founder and Executive Director of NAPW, "but also the fundamental issue of whether or not pregnant women are recognized as full Constitutional persons under the law."

The letter was co-signed by more than 100 legal and public health experts and advocates concerned with both abortion and birthing rights. The signatories include scholars who have revealed the ways that anti-abortion claims of fetal rights are being used to justify policing and punishment of pregnant women who want to carry their pregnancies to term. Among the signers are Dorothy Roberts (Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty); Laura Gomez (Misconceiving Mothers: Legislators, Prosecutors, and the Politics of Prenatal Drug Exposure); Lisa Ikemoto (Furthering the Inquiry: Race, Class, and Culture in the Forced Medical Treatment of Pregnant Women); April Cherry (The Free Exercise Rights of Pregnant Women Who Refuse Medical Treatment); Michelle Oberman (Women, Fetuses, Physicians and the State: Pegnancy and Medical Ethics in the 21st Century); Cynthia Daniels (At Women's Expense: State Power and the Politics of Fetal Rights); Jeanne Flavin (Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction in America); and Rachel Roth (Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights).

"Women's constitutional right to reproductive autonomy includes far more than the right to terminate a pregnancy," said Nancy Ehrenreich, editor of The Reproductive Rights Reader: Law, Medicine and the Construction of Motherhood. "Focusing the confirmation hearings on the issue of abortion ignores the fact that the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe, and more broadly its role as ultimate interpreter of the constitution, are both essential to assuring women their basic rights to human dignity and equality."

You can read the letter here.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor will begin July 13. More information is available online at the Senate Judiciary Committee website.

This morning, National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Center for HIV Law and Policy, and Elizabeth Frankel and Valerie Wright of the Maine law firm Verrill Dana, LLP, filed an emergency amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief on behalf of 28 public health experts, advocates, and organizations challenging the imprisonment of an HIV positive pregnant woman in order to protect her “innocent” “unborn child.”

Ms. T, a 28 year-old woman from Cameroon, was arrested in January 2009 for allegedly having false immigration documents. Shortly after her arrest, she learned she was both pregnant and HIV positive. On May 14, 2009, instead of sentencing her to “time served,” which was consistent with the federal sentencing guidelines and the recommendations of her attorney and the United States Attorney’s Office, United States District Court Judge John Woodcock extended Ms. T’s sentence to 238 days, making clear that the sentence was calculated specifically to ensure that she remained incarcerated for the duration of her pregnancy. See Judge Jails Pregnant Woman Until Baby is Born and Behind Bars for Being Pregnant and HIV-Positive.

As is often the situation in cases involving pregnant women, Courts feel pressed to make decisions without benefit of full briefing, input from experts or amicus participation. Indeed, uncertain of Ms. T’s due date and how long he would need to extend the sentence to ensure she was imprisoned through her due date, the Judge looked out over the courtroom and said “So maybe we ought to consult with the women here. Any sense of what a safe range would be?”

The Amicus brief filed this morning provided the Court with the expert information unavailable at the sentencing hearings. The brief outlines legal problems with depriving pregnant women of their liberty in order to advance alleged state interests in fetal health and the public health problems with assuming that jails and prisons provide superior or even adequate health care. As an expert declaration filed by Dr. Robert L. Cohen stated: “Based upon my thirty years of experience in the delivery, administration, research, evaluation, and monitoring of medical care in jails and prisons throughout the United States, it is my opinion that it is very often the case that the medical care available to prisoners falls well below that available to non-prisoners.”

Ms. T is being represented by Zachary L. Heiden of the Maine ACLU.

NAPW and Center for HIV Law and Policy are grateful to Laura McTighe, Director of Project UNSHACKLE, Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), for her extraordinary help in this effort and the numerous public health experts, advocates, and organizations appearing as amici on this brief, including:

National Women’s Health Network, National Association of People with AIDS, Frannie Peabody Center, Mardge H. Cohen, M.D., Howard Minkoff, M.D., ACT UP Philadelphia, African Services Committee, AIDS Foundation of Chicago, Alliance of AIDS Services – Carolina, American Medical Students Association, Black Women’s Health Imperative, Chicago Women’s AIDS Project, Circle of Care, Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project, HIV Law Project, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Liberty Research Group, National AIDS Fund, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, Rebecca Project for Human Rights, Twin States Network, Women Organized to Respond to Life-Threatening Disease (WORLD), Women Rising Project, Women Together for Change Project, Jeff Berry, Wendy Chavkin, M.D., MPH, Leslie Gise, M.D., and Sean Strub.

We are pleased to report that the Court granted bail this morning, allowing Ms. T’s release pending appeal in the case. See Jail time cut for pregnant illegal alien and In Search of Justice: Bail Granted for HIV+ Pregnant Woman.

Barely two weeks ago, when President Obama gave the commencement address at Notre Dame he said, 'As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?'

Upon Dr. Tiller's death, Randall Terry, the founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who led protests against Tiller's clinic in 1991, issued a statement saying in part, 'I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.' This rhetoric includes describing Dr. Tiller as 'a mass-murderer' and abortion as a kind of 'slaughter.' It also includes describing Dr. Tiller, as Bill O'Reilly did, as 'guilty of Nazi stuff.'

This rhetoric of 'mass murder' and 'slaughter,' killing and genocide, all commonly used by a variety of religious and political organizations that oppose abortion, is language that is demonizing and dangerous. Is this really how we think of women who have abortions, some lucky enough to do so with the support of caring doctors? Do we really believe that pregnant women who end their pregnancies and the health care providers who help them are no different from Hitler or Pol Pot? Do we really think that the individual decisions of pregnant women are the same as, or as claimed by some groups, worse than, government-sponsored genocide?

One of the amazing things about Dr. Tiller, in addition to his determination and his extraordinary courage, was the fact that he knew and appreciated who his patients were. He knew them as loving women, daughters, and mothers who are the backbone of their families and, to a large extent, our country.

Many of the women who traveled to Dr. Tiller's clinic were not women who wanted to have abortions, or who even support the right to choose to have an abortion. Many were women with wanted pregnancies who learned that their baby had no brain, or kidneys growing on the outside of their bodies or things their doctors described to them as 'severe fetal cardiac malformations.' They were women who could not face two or three more months of pregnancy with people patting their bellies and saying, 'Oh honey you must be excited. When are you due?' Some women deal with such crises by continuing to term even knowing the baby cannot survive. Others find that their dignity depends on being able to end the pregnancy.

Some women who went to his clinic were extremely young. Some who went struggled with health problems and disabilities that they felt would be exacerbated by a pregnancy they did not recognize until late. All together they represented women with the least desired and rarest abortions, ones late in pregnancy.

Dr. Tiller was extraordinary. When I met him he talked about why women have abortions and how they understand them in terms of their religious faith and spirituality. He described his efforts to serve them with respect, making possible rituals that would allow them to say goodbye to fetal life that they in fact valued.

Some women who returned from his clinic actually felt that they had been treated better through an abortion they wished they had not needed, than through a birth that they had anticipated with joy.

Today and the days that follow there will be some who will explicitly or subtly endorse Dr. Tiller's murder as a matter of necessity, justified to stop what they will claim is worse killing.

I am tired of a public debate that treats seriously the claim that pregnant women, mothers, and the people who support them are killers. I am tired of a debate that trivializes genocide by saying that what women do to deal with their reproductive lives is worse.

What I want instead is to honor George Tiller, a man who honored women. And I want instead to honor those who value fetal life, but who do not lose sight of the women who give that life, and who would never dream of murdering a doctor who was among the few to give those women the services, respect, and dignity they deserved.

The USCCB says that its political positions are based on the belief that “all human life is sacred." They cite this quotation from Archbishop John Roach, as the expression of their guiding vision: "We are committed to full legal recognition of the right to life of the unborn child, and will not rest in our efforts until society respects the inherent worth and dignity of every member of the human race." Yet an examination of the USCCB’s public positions in two high profile legal cases, described in a chart NAPW developed, raises a key question: Does the USCCB believe that all human life – except that of pregnant women -- is sacred?

Kate Jack, NAPW's newest staff attorney, has been invited to blog for the American Constitution Society. Her first blog, Federal Appeals Court, States Reexamining Shackling of Pregnant Inmates, discusses our work on behalf of pregnant, imprisoned women. We have also just posted a new Youtube video: Challenging The Myths: Pregnant Women, Crack, & Healthy Children who Succeed. Watch the fabulous Mary Barr answer the question: What kind of kids & teens do children prenatally exposed to cocaine turn out to be?

In Indiana, we helped to get a felony child neglect charge dismissed against Brooke Honaker who carried her pregnancy to term in spite of a drug problem. This case was originally discussed in a news article that highlighted NAPW's work on behalf of drug-using pregnant women. NAPW prepared a memo for local counsel demonstrating that Indiana precedent (some of which our staff helped establish years ago) clearly barred the neglect charge against Ms. Honaker. Local defense counsel, Mr. Jon Owen, used this information in a motion to dismiss. We are happy to report that the court granted the motion.

This case and many like it make clear the need for and value of NAPW's persistence and vigilance.

Contrary to the assumptions made in the article and underlying the arrest, methamphetamine use during pregnancy has not been found to create unique harms, or harms greater than exposure to such things as cigarettes. A discussion of this research by Dr. Barry Lester, available as part of an NPR report on an Oklahoma case, can be access by clicking here.

NAPW prepared a memo for local counsel showing that Indiana precedent (some of which our staff helped establish years ago) clearly applied in this case and barred the neglect charge against Ms. Honaker. Even though there was no legal basis for this arrest, the prosecutor refused to drop the charge even after being advised of the controlling precedent. Local counsel, Mr. Jon Owen persisted in defending Ms. Honaker. He used the information in our memo and filed a motion to dismiss. We are happy to report that the court granted it.

This case is a great example of the need for and value of NAPW's persistence and vigilance in maintaining gains already achieved. It is also a terrific example of good legal defense work. Congratulations to Mr. Owen.

This case also illustrates that in spite of the absence of laws authorizing these arrests and, in cases like this, court decisions explicitly banning such charges, prosecutors continue bring these cases. Women like Ms. Honaker are not only charged with a non-existent crime, they experience a traumatizing arrest, detention, and lengthy legal battle while often failing to get the drug treatment they may need.

We, however, are grateful to Ms. Lafferty for providing us with a fantastic opportunity to educate the public about the possibilities for common ground, and to bring more attention to our newest video featuring award-winning pediatrician Deborah A. Frank, debunking the "crack baby" and other drug related myths. On March 30, 2009 the Huffingtonpost ran our new commentary, Do People Who Support "Traditional Values" Value Pregnant Women? with a link to the video.

The video is a very useful teaching tool. Please share it widely with policy makers, students, health care providers, medical and child welfare administrators, advocates, and allies.

What's really great is that NAPW stepped out of the policy-wonk bubble and used a little creativity to describe in clear and factually accurate terms what can sometimes seem obscure or complex. When the propaganda of the anti-choicers is sliced away, it's pretty simple -- these "personhood" laws would benefit no one and be a disaster for women... With its video, NAPW is also spreading its communications sensibilities -- and in especially admirable ways.

Don't forget to check out the video and the commentaries

While I wish the story appeared 20 years ago, it gets an awful lot right. One thing it got wrong though is the caption to the picture accompanying the story. The caption for the photo describes it as "a 1988 photo, testing a baby addicted to cocaine." Ahh, the intransigence of misinformation. It is ironic indeed, that the story, designed to debunk much of the junk science and media hype with regard to the effects of prenatal exposure to drugs, includes rank misinformation in the picture caption. In 2004, every leading researcher in the field joined a letter to none other than the New York Times and other media outlets asking them to stop using the term "crack baby" and specifically explaining that:

The term “crack addicted baby” is no less defensible. Addiction is a technical term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be “addicted” to crack or anything else. In utero physiologic dependence on opiates (not addiction), known as Neonatal Narcotic Abstinence Syndrome, is readily diagnosed, but no such symptoms have been found to occur following prenatal cocaine exposure."

I also have to point out that the story suggests that the prosecution of pregnant women ended in the new millennium. We really wish that were true.

Finally, in conjunction with our upcoming program, NAPW has posted a lecture by Judy Murphy, founder of Moms Off Meth. The video quality is not the best, but the information is so clear, accessible and important, that anyone interested in learning how we can really help pregnant women and families will watch and listen.

Hope to see you on February 11!

Lynn Paltrow,
Executive Director

Almost every day there is something in the newspaper (yes I still actually get some of my news from things that are published with ink on newsprint) that connects to NAPW’s work. Here are two thoughts for the day.

For a long time I have been troubled by an interview posted on Youtube with one, Dr. Paul McHugh, a psychiatrist hired by the state of Kansas to go after George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who provides much needed abortion services. Families, many of whom would describe themselves as pro-life, go to his clinic for help from all over the United States. Dr. McHugh was hired as part of an effort to prevent Dr. Tiller from providing these services. In the interview, Dr. McHugh claims that there is never ever, even possibly a psychological need for an abortion.

As is often the case in the abortion debate, this interview also serves as a vehicle for other political messages and agendas. Very often that agenda includes reinforcing the mythology of government care – the idea that services and support are readily available to people -- if only they would go out and get it. So for example, Dr. McHugh asserts, in this interview that "after all, in our country, the resources for psychiatric services and psychological services are rich." Really?

An op ed in today’s New York Times addressing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for soldiers returning from Iraq reports that “Less than 40 percent of service members who get a diagnosis of P.T.S.D. receive mental health services, and only slightly more than half of recent veterans who receive treatment get adequate care. Those who seek follow-up treatment run into delays of up to 90 days, which suggests there is a serious shortage of mental health professionals available to help them.”

So if even our soldiers can’t get the psychological care they need -- it is hard to believe that pregnant women -- many of whom are poor, many of whom lack health insurance, and virtually none of whom have insurance that covers mental health services -- will find our country "rich" in psychological services.

Here is another one. Although no law in Alabama permits the prosecution of a woman who continues her pregnancy to term in spite of a drug problem, a local prosecutor has decided to make his own law. He claims that the state’s chemical endangering law – a law designed to deter and punish the creation of things like methamphetamine labs – should be judicially expanded to apply to pregnant women in relationship to the fetuses they carries. (A pregnant woman = a methamphetamine manufacturing and processing plant?) Although every leading public health and child welfare group to address this issue thinks this approach will undermine both maternal and fetal health, this prosecutor asserts that imprisoning pregnant women will somehow protect their children.

So the other day I was reading about Alabama county jails. Public experts generally agree that good nutrition is important to achieving healthy pregnancies. Turns out though that by law Alabama provides a state food allowance of only $1.75 per prisoner per day. Just to give you an idea of how little that is – I learned from Paul Krugman’s column today that the cost of a free school lunch for a poor child is $2.57. A single very low cost meal per day is $2.75—but the state of Alabama will protect its future children by imprisoning pregnant women and feeding them for an entire day on less than $1.75? I say “less than” because Alabama rewards local sheriffs by allowing them to spend even less than $1.75 per day and keeping the difference for him or herself.

In a week in which there is great reason to celebrate (the new administration has lifted the dangerous and counterproductive gag rule) there are many good reasons to start paying very close attention to what those who oppose reproductive justice are really claiming.

Lynn M. Paltrow, Executive Director

NAPW is very proud that as a result of our cross movement building and collaborations, major organizations, including the Center for American Progress, a coalition of pro-choice organizations and the National Organization for Women (NOW) have all submitted reproductive health agendas to the new Administration that include proposals not only to protect the right to choose abortion and to use and understand the value of contraceptive services, but also to advance the health and rights of women going to term.

For a long time, I believed that the abortion issue would continue to be used successfully as a brilliant diversion to divide and distract – particularly in the area of national or universal health care. It seemed that just raising the issue of including abortion in a new health care plan could potentially scuttle the whole thing. Today, though, I think we can move beyond that – from claims of supporting a culture of life, to a health care plan that actually supports and provides care for all the women who give that life.

Here is how to do it: The Obama-Biden Transition team is calling on citizens to participate in discussions of health care reform in their homes, community centers, etc. between December 15-31. To "lead a discussion" go to http://change.gov/page/s/hcdiscussion and fill out the form. The transition team wants people to develop and share ideas about how to fix the health care system. And as many of you know a lot needs to be fixed, including:

* the system's exclusion of coverage for most abortion services,

* the lack of coverage for midwifery care and birthing centers,

* practices that fail to support women who experience miscarriages and stillbirths,

* the lack of access for pregnant women, their families and friends to appropriate drug treatment and mental health services,

* practices that encourages costly and unnecessary cesarean surgeries.

Each host will be sent a moderator guide. After the meeting, the host reports back. Someone in the transition team will prepare a report based on the feedback and that report will be given to the new President. You can also send your ideas directly through a form which asks "Tell us your story, why health care is important to you, or what you'd like to see an Obama-Biden administration do and where you'd like the country to go." http://change.gov/page/s/healthcare.

Another part of the website concerned with "social innovation and civic engagement" asks the public to post their answers to the following question: What social causes and service organizations are you a part of that make a difference in your community? http://change.gov/page/content/discussservice

We hope you will take the opportunity to participate in these efforts and carry the message of care and inclusion for all pregnant women.

And if you haven't yet given to NAPW to support all of our cross-issue, movement building efforts, please make a contribution today!

Best Wishes for the Holiday Season,

We explained that many people who identify as "pro-life" are not in fact concerned about only one life – the life of the "unborn," but rather are pro-lives – concerned about the unborn as well as the pregnant woman, new mother and her other family members. This gives us, and the new Administration many opportunities to find common ground for advancing reproductive and social justice in this Country.

In addition, as a result of NAPW's efforts, recommendations being sent to the new administration by organizations that have historically been primarily concerned with defending the right to choose abortion include recommendations to increase and improve the care of birthing women, pregnant prisoners and pregnant women who love their children but cannot overcome an alcohol or addiction problem faster than, say, Rush Limbaugh. It is so important that the interests of birthing women not be ceded to Feminists for Life -- or any other one organization, one movement, or one party.

We are also pleased that leaders in the birthing rights movement have sent specific recommendations to the new administration, and in doing so acknowledged

the many points of similarity in the reproductive injustices imposed upon women across the entire spectrum of reproductive health, including pregnant women who are incarcerated or have substance abuse problems.

Please know that NAPW is here to help and would be honored to assist the transition team and the new Administration in any way we can.

The event, co-hosted by Gloria Steinem, Caroline's comedy-club owner Caroline Hirsch and Ms. Foundation President and CEO, Sara K. Gould, was an evening of sisterly fun and celebration as prominent comedians, such as Suzanne Whang, host of HGTV's House Hunters, serving as event Emcee, Kristen Schaal, well-known "Senior" Women's Correspondent for the Daily Show, and Marina Franklin, of Chapelle's Show fame, to name a few, engaged the audience with sharp comedy smartly presented in a feminist context. "The need for humor and hope to spur us on," according to Ms. Foundation President Sara K. Gould, "has never been greater."

NAPW is extremely grateful for the support we receive from the Ms. Foundation and for all of the support that enables us to work at both the national and local levels to advance the interests of all pregnant women.

I never had the privilege of meeting Barbara, but knew about some of her work, including her book, The Doctor’s Case Against the Pill. This book and her activism exposed the serious health dangers posed especially by the first generation of the birth control pill. Indeed, Barbara Seaman’s work probably saved my own mother’s life.

It is very likely that he made the right diagnosis because of Barbara’s work bringing the pill’s risks to the attention of everyone, including the doctors who were so avidly and uncritically prescribing it in those days.

One of the things that is so striking and resonant about Barbara Seaman is the fact that her research exposing the risks of the pill required her to challenge not only obvious opposition – the pharmaceutical companies, but also people we would expect to be her natural allies – birth control and sex education advocates. Barbara was challenging the pill’s safety at a time when abortion was still illegal, and people were desperate for a magic bullet that would enable women to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The truth is hard sometimes.

So much of the work that National Advocates for Pregnant Women does is to challenge prevailing medical myths and junk science –whether those myths involve claims about c-sections and fetal monitors, drug use, or drug treatment. We too find that both opposition and allies sometimes find it hard to believe the scientific evidence, and the medical truths.

Barbara Seaman was of course doing much more than exposing medical risks. She was advancing the radical idea that women should be truly informed about their health and the medications they are prescribed, that doctors and elected officials should listen to the real experts on women’s health issues – the women whose health was at stake. She was working to empower women to act as their own advocates and tirelessly urging them to think critically about their health care and the latest medical miracle.

Last night I learned a lot more about Barbara Seaman. I learned about her life-long friends in the struggle for women’s rights and health, and about new younger friends who she had mentored and encouraged. I learned that she was warm, loving, and generous to her colleagues and allies, constantly making connections and building bridges across generations, ideas, and forms of activism.

It was such an honor to receive this award, and to recognize that I am part of Barbara Seaman’s legacy. My congratulations to Gina Arias, the Program Director for Empowerment and Wellness at Housing Works in Brooklyn, NY, who also won this award. My thanks to the National Women’s Health Network for the award and for all that they do – including allowing NAPW to represent them in many ongoing challenges to the use of junk science and to the prosecution and punishment of pregnant women.

Dear Governor Sarah Palin:

Many Americans agree with your position regarding abortion – they do this as a matter of faith, ethics, personal experience and sometimes politics. We are just wondering though, if you have thought about what would happen if you succeeded in getting your position – that fetuses have a right to life -- established as the law of the land? Did you know that it not only threatens the lives, health and freedom of women who might want or need someday to end their pregnancies, it would also give the government the power to control the lives of women – like you who -- go to term?

Your last pregnancy, the one that has become the topic of widespread discussion and speculation provides an important opportunity to demonstrate how this could be true.

After, Ayesha Madyun’s water broke, she went to the hospital where she hoped and planned to have a vaginal birth. When she didn’t give birth in a time-frame comfortable to her doctors, they argued that she should have a C-section. The doctors asserted that the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. (Risks of infection are believed by some health care providers to increase with each hour after a woman’s water has broken and she hasn’t delivered).

The court, believing, like you that fetuses have a right to life, said, "[a]ll that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun's flesh, the muscles of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. The core principle justifying an end to legal abortion in the US provided the same grounds used to deprive this pregnant and laboring woman of her rights to due process, bodily integrity, and physical liberty. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.

According to the press reports, instead of going straight to a hospital you chose to get on a long airplane flight back to Alaska.

When Pamela Rae Stewart, allegedly, didn’t get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of her delivery, she was arrested in California on the theory that she had violated the rights of her fetus

When Laura Pemberton chose to give birth at home in Florida, a Sheriff came to her house. Doctors believed that she was posing a risk to the life of her unborn child by having a vaginal birth after having had a previous c-section. The doctors were in the process of getting a court- order to force her to have a c-section. The sheriff took Ms. Pemberton into custody during active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital where an emergency hearing was taking place to determine the rights of her fetus. She was “allowed” to represent herself. A lawyer was appointed for the fetus. This woman, who vehemently opposes abortion, nevertheless believed in her right to evaluate medical risks and benefits to herself and her unborn child. She was forced to have the unnecessary surgery and when she later sued for violations of her civil rights, was told fetal rights outweighed hers.

You chose to continue working throughout your pregnancy – even during your labor. Until 1991, women who worked in high paying blue color jobs that provided health benefits were being fired based on “fetal rights” policies that claimed if the woman became pregnant she would expose the unborn child to workplace health risks. Eventually, the Supreme Court said employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the PDA) could not do this. But, millions of American women who work part time or for small employers are not covered by the PDA. If your political position on abortion is accepted – all of these women could be forced to give up their jobs because an employer, family member, or state agent believed it necessary to ensure the health and rights of their unborn child.

Governor Palin, you have led an extraordinary life, balancing work and family, public service and private family obligations. We hope you know though that your freedom relies on exactly the same legal principles that guarantee that American women can choose to have an abortion when they need and want one.

Sixty one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers. Eighty-four percent of these women will be mothers by the time they are in forties. We hope that you, as the proud mother of five beautiful children, will recognize that the issue isn’t abortion – it is ensuring the lives, dignity and freedom of all pregnant women and their families.

Lynn Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women