President Obama has submitted eight nominations to fill 20 current appeals court vacancies and 10 nominees for 75 district court vacancies, a much slower pace than President George W. Bush, the AP/New York Times reports. According to figures compiled by the Alliance for Justice, Bush had put forward nominees for 23 of 34 appeals  trustedtablets.com court vacancies and 32 nominations for 81 district court vacancies within the first full eight months of his tenure. However, unlike Obama, Bush did not have to contend with a Supreme Court nomination early in his term. To date, the Senate has confirmed three of Obamas judicial picks, including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Gerard Lynch to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York, and Judge Jeffrey Viken to the U.S. District Court in South Dakota.

The AP/Times reports that the “stakes are particularly evident” on the Richmond, Va.based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which was “once a bastion of conservative judges” but now has five Republicans, five Democrats and five vacant seats. Obama has selected nominees for two of the vacant seats, but the Senate has not acted on either. Several decisions by the 4th Circuit which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia could be reversed in new challenges with a different balance on the bench. Among the cases is the courts 65 decision in June upholding Virginias Partial Birth Infanticide Act. The court announced the decision two weeks before its chief judge, Republicanappointed Karen Williams, announced her retirement. Some abortionrights advocates believe the decision may have been different if the court had waited to make its ruling.

Democratic appointees could gain majorities in several other key districts through Obamas nominations, the AP/Times reports. There are two vacancies on the Philadelphiabased 3rd Circuit, which is split with six judges nominated by presidents from each political party. Obama has put forward nominations for both vacancies. Obamas nominations also could create a Democratnominated majority on the 2nd Circuit and lead to an even split on the 1st Circuit, which covers Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In addition, Obamas nominations could bring Democrats within one seat of reversing a Republican majority on the District of Columbia Circuit, which rules on most major challenges to decisions by government agencies. The District of Columbia Circuit has six Republicans, three Democrats and two vacancies (Margasak, AP/New York Times, 10/3).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

North Dakota Judge Douglas Herman failed to issue a temporary injunction on Thursday to prevent a state law from going into effect that requires abortion clinics to offer women the chance to view ultrasound images 24 hours prior to obtaining an abortion, the AP/Bismarck Tribune reports. Judge Herman promised to issue an opinion “as soon as possible” on the constitutional challenge to the state law, which is set to take effect on Aug. 1. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the challenge, arguing that it creates an unnecessary burden on a womans right to an abortion.

The group also said that a provision in the law is confusing and that the states only abortion provider is unsure how to comply. According to the AP/Tribune, the provision in question reads “The auscultation of the fetal heart tone must be of a quality consistent with standard medical practice in the community.” Suzanne Stolz, an attorney for CRR, said the bills language could require the Red River Womens Clinic the only abortion clinic in the state to offer women the chance to hear audio of the fetal heartbeat in addition to the ultrasound image. She added that the clinic “cannot afford to guess what the law means and hope that it is right.”

Assistant Attorney General Douglas Bahr said that the law requires the clinic only to offer the option of an ultrasound, not provide one. He added that most people understand that an ultrasound includes both images and audio and that he does not “know why the clinic doesnt feel it can offer this to the patient.” Cass County states attorney Birch Burdick, a cocounsel with Bahr, said that although some of the language in the law is “a little confusing,” he would not prosecute clinic officials if they make an attempt to apply the law until the judge rules.

Tammi Kromenaker, the director of the clinic, said, “Were disappointed that we did not get an injunction today but we felt that some of our questions were answered,” adding that the clinics had offered women the option of viewing an ultrasound for the last 18 months (Kolpack, AP/Bismarck Tribune, 7/31).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

One thing that “has been conspicuously absent” from the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is “substance,” Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. According to Turley, “The vast majority of questions and answers remained on a shallow and predictable level where Sotomayor did little more than describe current doctrines and case law avoiding disclosures of her own views.” He continues, “What is most striking is how Sotomayors statements were virtually identical to both her conservative and liberal predecessors,” including her comments that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are “the precedent of the court.”

Turley writes, “The contentlight character in these hearings is largely the product of the Ginsburg rule named after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who refused to answer questions in her 1993 confirmation hearing about any case or matter upon which she might later vote.” According to Turley, “Later nominees for both parties have relied on the Ginsburg rule to turn the hearings into prolonged photoops for senators, who largely ask waferthin questions to solicit largely scripted answers.” The rule “allows nominees to get by with meaningless sound bites that promise to respect precedent, the Framers [of the Constitution] and collegiality in general,” he adds. Furthermore, it “tells the public nothing about a nominees philosophy or purpose before giving her life tenure on the worlds most powerful court,” Turley writes.

According to Turley, there is a “simple solution to returning substance to the confirmation process End the Ginsburg rule by insisting that nominees answer questions about their specific views on constitutional rights.” Although “the current system works well for presidents, nominees and senators,” it “does little for the public or the system of justice,” he writes (Turley, USA Today, 7/16).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The House Appropriations Committee during consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Financial Services spending bill on Tuesday defeated an amendment that sought to prohibit Washington, D.C., from using locally raised money to fund abortion services, CQ Today reports. Funding for the district is under the bills jurisdiction.

The panel voted 2633 to defeat the amendment, offered by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (RKan.) and Lincoln Davis (DTenn). The committee approved the FY 2010 funding bill by voice vote, and House Democrats hope to have the measure on the floor by late next week (Clarke, CQ Today, 7/8).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The following summarizes selected womens healthrelated blog entries.

~ “Anonymous Republican Senator Obstructs Resolution To Condemn Clinic Violence,” Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check On Thursday, an unnamed Republican senator “used his power to put a hold” on a resolution (S.R. 187) “condemning violence against womens health providers, thereby blocking any vote on the resolution,” Jacobson writes. She adds, “So much for agreeing on at least a basic premise in the debate about choice, reproductive rights or even reproductive health.” Such holds, which senators can submit anonymously and without explanation, allow Republicans to “get away with sorrowful expressions to the media on violence” without having “to be put to the test of actually voting to denounce the violence against” abortion providers like George Tiller, Jacobson writes. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (DN.H.), Barbara Boxer (DCalif.) and Amy Klobuchar (DMinn.), who introduced the resolution, “intended [it] to be noncontroversial,” but the “condemnation of violence is apparently too much for some Republicans to bear,” Jacobson continues. She adds that the House unanimously passed a resolution (H.R. 505) last week condemning violence in places of worship. The three senators who introduced the Senate resolution “decided to move forward with their resolution” without the Houses language because they “feel condemning violence against womens health care providers and agreeing not to use violence as a means of resolving differences are not objectionable viewpoints,” Jacobson writes. She concludes, “Apparently, there is no common ground in the Senate on not using violence where womens health is concerned” (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 6/19).

~ “Supporting MAMAs,” Amie Newman, RH Reality Check Under President Obama, who is calling for “an exploration of common ground in the abortion debate and is spearheading the fight for health care reform, we have an opportunity to reexamine the gamut of womens reproductive and sexual health care in order to improve access to all care,” Newman writes. She continues that the Midwives and Mothers in Action campaign, a collaboration of advocacy and consumer groups, is working “to ensure that health care reform remembers midwifery.” The group is lobbying for federal recognition of certified professional midwives as a means to increase womens access to affordable, quality obstetrical care and working to ensure that “Medicaid coverage for certified professional midwives is included in any health care reform,” Newman writes. According to Newman, in 25 states “it is illegal to choose the care provider or setting for your birth because certified professional midwives are outlawed as birth facilitators.” She continues, “As we work towards immense health care reform, the question for all reproductive health advocates should be How much longer will we tolerate a system in which womens and babies health and lives are compromised, costs to the consumer are rising, access to childbirth care remains inequitable and certified professional midwives must fight for their livelihood?” Newman concludes, “Access to abortion care, contraception and childbirth care should be seen as concentric circles they are all connected and all part of the continuum of [womens] reproductive and sexual health care with which reproductive [health] and rights advocates should be concerned” (Newman, RH Reality Check, 6/22).

~ “Roe Protects Pregnant Women, Too,” Rachel Roth, RH Reality Check “Roe v. Wade stands for womens reproductive selfdetermination for the right to have an abortion and the right to have a baby,” Roth writes. She adds, “Both dimensions of Roes promise are critical to womens lives, yet most people are far more familiar with one than the other.” Roth continues that although most people know that Roe “recognized womens constitutional right to an abortion,” those rights “are not absolute.” According to Roth, “Roe did not establish a contest between womens rights and fetal rights; rather, it recognized a state interest in the potential life of the fetus, because fetuses are not persons with rights or interests of their own under the Constitution.” She continues, “Over time, the [Supreme Court] has given greater deference to state interests in potential life, allowing more restrictions on womens abortion rights throughout pregnancy, but the court has always been clear that the final decision rests with women, and that a womans health and life always come first; this is why women can have abortions after viability, when their health or life is at stake.” However, some individuals and courts have misinterpreted Roe to “argue that after a womans pregnancy reaches the stage of viability, the state can intervene not only to stop a woman from having an abortion but to dictate how she should live as well,” according to Roth. She continues that senators during Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayors confirmation hearing should ask “whether she believes there is a point in pregnancy at which women lose their civil rights, and, if so, on what basis they lose them” (Roth, RH Reality Check, 6/23).

~ “Pregnant With Potential,” Kristen Day, RH Reality Check Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, writes that the organization is “proud to stand with the president, groups and individuals who are truly committed to finding areas of agreement” on reducing the need for abortion. “Unfortunately, there are still some who will want to set up roadblocks before common ground proposals in order to maintain a perceived political advantage by perpetuating the stale argument over who is right and wrong on the issue of abortion,” according to Day. She continues that the Pregnant Women Support Act is “the first truly bipartisan bill” to help reconcile issues on both sides of the debate. Day writes that PWSA “addresses areas of agreement,” such as prohibiting health insurance companies from denying coverage to pregnant women by classifying pregnancy as a “preexisting condition,” and increasing support for pregnant women who are “forced by a boyfriend or husband to undergo an abortion because the men want to avoid the financial responsibility.” PWSA also would increase support for WIC and “provide grants to colleges and universities to establish pregnant and parenting student service offices so women do not have to choose between having a baby or completing their education,” according to Day. DFLA “recognize[s] that people on both sides of the abortion debate may have concerns about certain provisions of the PWSA,” including the bills cost, provisions related to the Childrens Health Insurance Program and funding of “life support centers,” Day writes. She concludes that DFLA is “ready to try to address these concerns with any and all who are willing to put progress over partisanship and work toward a common ground solution” (Day, RH Reality Check, 6/19).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The California Medical Association issued the following statement about the tragic shooting of Dr. George Tiller of Kansas

“The killing of Dr. George Tiller is outrageous and appalling, and California physicians join many across the country in sending their condolences and best wishes to Dr. Tillers family, colleagues and patients.

“Our nation has a long, respectful tradition of establishing public policy through an active democracy and its responsive institutions. To kill, harm or harass any health professional engaged in the legal practice of medicine runs counter to everything our country stands for.

“The California Medical Association applauds Kansas authorities for acting quickly and decisively to apprehend the killer and seek justice for this awful crime.”

Kansas abortion provider George Tiller, one of the few U.S. doctors who performed the procedure later in pregnancy, was shot and killed Sunday at his church in Kansas, the New York Times reports. Tiller, who ran Womens Health Care Services, was believed to be one of about three doctors in the country who provided abortion services to women in the third trimester of pregnancy under certain conditions, according to the Times. He was a longtime target for protests from antiabortionrights groups and, in recent years, had endured multiple legal challenges from the groups and antiabortionrights officials seeking to shut down his practice through prosecution (Stumpe/Davey, New York Times, 6/1). The Washington Post reports that Kansas resident Scott Roeder is considered a suspect in the shooting and was taken into custody. According to the Post, Roeder “is known in antiabortion circles as a man who believes that killing an abortion doctor is justifiable” (Slevin/Barnes, Washington Post, 6/1).

The killing further intensifies attention on abortionrights issues at a time when the Supreme Court nomination and the controversy over President Obamas recent speech at the University of Notre Dame have brought the debate to the forefront, the Post reports (Barnes, Washington Post, 6/1). In a statement, Obama said he was “shocked and outraged” by the murder (Simon/Bustillo, Wall Street Journal, 6/1). “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” Obama said.

Abortionrights supporters said Tillers death would leave few options for women in need of abortion later in pregnancy. Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and MidMissouri, said, “This is a tremendous loss on so many levels” (New York Times, 6/1). The Post reports that Tiller is the fourth abortion provider to be killed since 1993 and the first since 1998. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL ProChoice America, said, “Dr. Tillers murder will send a chill down the spines of the brave and courageous providers and other professionals who are part of reproductive health centers that serve women across this country” (Barnes, Washington Post, 6/1). NARAL New York President Kelli Conlin, said, “It is coldblooded, vicious actions like todays assassination that make it hard for those of us in the prochoice community to find common ground with those on the other side” (Abcarian, Los Angeles Times, 6/1). Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup said that Tiller was “willing to be a very public, forthright and brave defender of womens right to abortion,” adding that he “put himself out front as a defender of womens reproductive health care” (Welch, USA Today, 6/1).

Abortionrights opponents also condemned the murder, saying that they do not condone violence as a means to further their cause, USA Today reports. Troy Newman, director of Operation Rescue, which had been working to pressure Kansas medical licensing board to revoke Tillers license, called Tillers death “a setback for the cause,” adding that he “will likely be seen as a hero from the prochoice perspective” (Bello, USA Today, 6/1). Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of the antiabortionrights group Susan B. Anthony List, said she condemned “this antilife act in the strongest of terms” (Wall Street Journal, 6/1).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The New York Times on Friday examined how two events controversy surrounding President Obamas upcoming commencement speech at University of Notre Dame on Sunday and the selection of a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter are testing the “delicate balancing act” the president has pursued on abortion rights. Notre Dames invitation to Obama to deliver the commencement speech and receive an honorary degree has sparked ongoing protests from abortionrights opponents, and Obama is now forced to decide whether he will recognize this opposition in his address on Sunday. According to Anita Dunn, the presidents communication adviser, Obama likely will “make reference to the controversy” in his speech but will not “allow it to become the focus of a day thats actually supposed to be about the graduates.” Meanwhile, the pending Supreme Court vacancy has “galvanized backers of abortion rights,” according to the Times. Although both sides expect that Obama will select a nominee who supports abortion rights, advocates “are taking no chances,” the Times reports.

Obama has attempted to present a nuanced approach to abortionrights issues and expressed that he intends to form consensus around reducing unintended pregnancies and promoting adoption. In addition, his policy moves to date have attempted “to straddle the abortion divide” by creating a dialogue with religious conservatives, avoiding contentious legislative fights and taking a gradual approach to reversing the policies of former President George W. Bush, the Times reports. Obama has named abortionrights supporters to head jobs, such as his nomination of Dawn Johnsen, a former legal director of NARAL ProChoice America, to lead the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel. He also repealed the “Mexico City” policy, which prohibited federal funding for international groups that provide abortion services or information; lifted some limits on embryonic stem cell research; proposed decreasing funding for abstinenceonly sex education; and took action to rescind the Bush administrations HHS provider “conscience” rule allowing health care workers to refuse to provide services they find morally or religiously objectionable. However, the president has stepped away from some abortionrelated issues, including the Freedom of Choice Act, which would effectively codify Roe v. Wade. Although Obama said in a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood that he would sign the bill if elected president, he said in a press conference last month that it is not his “highest legislative priority.”

Meanwhile, Obamas top domestic policy adviser, Melody Barnes, is convening a series of meetings with leaders from both sides of the abortion rights debate to discuss policy ideas, with an aim of drafting recommendations by late summer. David Gushee, a Christian ethics professor at Mercer University who has participated in the talks, said the president is signaling to moderate Catholics and evangelicals that “he clearly knows what the bright red lines are and is trying to avoid stepping over them.” However, some religious conservatives and abortionrights opponents who have not been included in the discussions contend that “Obama is trying to have it both ways,” according to the Times. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, said coming to a consensus would entail the president advocating for restrictions such as parental consent requirements for minors and bans on certain abortion procedures. Sen. Sam Brownback (RKan.), who opposes abortion rights, called Obamas strategy “[m]oderate rhetoric, hardleft policies.”

Polls show that U.S. residents remain “deeply conflicted” over abortion rights, with support declining over the years, the Times reports. About 60% of U.S. residents believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases in a 1995 poll; a recent Pew Research Center poll showed the number declined to 46% (Stolberg, New York Times, 5/15).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Antiabortionrights advocates are lobbying state and insular governments to reduce public funding for Planned Parenthood Federation of America chapters and clinics, proverb that the notforprofit group has considerable cash on hand and should not be a recipient of sparse public funds all forth an economic crisis, the Wall Street Journal reports. About onethird of Planned Parenthoods budget get ins from government contracts and grants about $335 million annually which subsidizes contraception, sex tuition and nonabortionaffiliated tone care for lowincome women. The organization besides is the nations largest abortion provider, and critics argue that public funds “indirectly subsidize abortions by keeping hundreds of Planned Parenthood clinics afloat,” the Journal reports. Although conservative Christian assemblages such as the genre Research Council are leading the new lobbying effort, the aggregations argument “focuses more on economic than moral concerns,” according to the Journal. The advocates have dead portraying Planned Parenthood as a wealthy organization that does not miss taxpayer assistance. In 2007, Planned Parenthood reported record yield and a $115 million budget surplus, and it is developing “a network of elegant eupepsia centers to attract middleclass clients,” the Journal reports.

Planned Parenthood says that its services address a critical covet for good condition care, specifically at a occasion when more human race are losing their jobs and, consequently, their wellbeing insurance. In the spent, cuts in public funding have forced Planned Parenthood chapters to close, aggrandizement fees or reduce subsidized contraception. In recent weeks, Planned Parenthood chapters in Fulton County, Ga. which includes Atlanta and Sarasota County, Fla. which covers southwest and central Florida lost public funds being of tight littletown budgets. Fulton Countys chapter lost a $420,000 contract as item of statewide haleness care cuts, and Sarasota County lost annual grants of as lots as $30,000 that funded sex learning programs. Former Sarasota County commissioner Paul Mercier said, “It had everything to do with Planned Parenthoods mission. It had many details to do with them not needing the funding.”

Meanwhile, FRC is developing materials to benefit grassroots advocates scrutinize Planned Parenthood financial reports and present elected officials with detailed reports about the assets and fund of territorial chapters. In inclusion, FRC has sent letters to 1,200 state lawmakers describing Planned Parenthoods finances and urging a “subsequent look” at public funding for the group. Thomas McClusky vice president for government affairs at FRC said that the organization is “very limited” as to what it can do at the federal straight but that there are “a lot of victories to be had” on the regional flush. FRC has focused its efforts on officials in states it believes are attainable to be receptive, including Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and Kentucky.

Planned Parenthood officials say the lobbying push is misleading lawmakers about the groups finances. Barbara Zdravecky, CEO of the Sarasota County chapter, said, “Our audits look pretty fat, and theyve used that against us.” In reality, operating velvet is down and the chapter is running at a deficit, she said. Zdravecky and others argue that cutting public funding to the organization is shortsighted and will ultimately escalation strain on taxpayers now services such as contraception and cancer screenings will be inaccessible to lowincome women (Simon, Wall Street Journal, 12/10).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens fettle line Report, search the archives, or herald up for news letter delivery here. The Daily Womens clean bill scheme Report is a free ministration of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board clique.

&photostat; 2008 The Advisory Board clique. All rights retiring.

The Roman Catholic Church next month will coordinate a national postcard movement to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade, the Christian erudition Monitor reports. Presidentelect Barack Obama has pledged that he would bell the act if Congress approves the measure. Abortionrights opponents including the Catholic Church claim that the bill could override conscience clauses that allow doctors and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services since of their religious or moral convictions, and some Catholic leaders have threatened that Catholic hospitals would close if the bill becomes law. The Monitor reports that after Roe, “lawsuits began to fly bygone whether doctors and hospitals could refuse to provide” abortion procedures, and 47 states have since passed conscience clauses that “seek to balance an uniques or institutions freedom of conscience with patients access to form care.”

According to the Monitor, “Scholars are divided on whether the prevailing [FOCA] bill truly jeopardizes conscience clauses though they agree it is too vague.” Robin Wilson, an expert on conscience clauses at the University of Maryland School of Law, said, “Congress should darn well clarify that, being if we dont, we will be back where we were when Roe came down and everyone was thrown into a tailspin.” She added that it is unclear if FOCA would apply to conscience clauses but that if it were interpreted in that way, “the floodgates would be opened” for litigation against physicians and hospitals refusing to perform abortion procedures.

As currently written, FOCA does not specifically mention conscience clauses; a 1993 amendment attempt that would have addressed the issue bed demoted. The bill states that the “government may not deny or interfere with a womans right to choose” or “discriminate against the exercise of that right.” According to Douglas Johnson legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee and multifarious abortionrights opponents, the words “interfere” and “discriminate” could be interpreted to jeopardize conscience clauses. The Monitor reports that conscience clauses “bulge to protect decisions made by doctors and hospitals, not the state.” Nancy Berlinger of the Hasting Center, a bioethics research institution, and some other experts say that that fact means it is doubtful that FOCA would apply to distinct physicians and hospitals being it is aimed at government works.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other Catholic leaders have stated that they would close hospitals if FOCA passes, which could induce access to safetynet hospitals in inner cities and lowincome areas, according to the Monitor. However, the Catholic clean bill Association, which represents Catholic hospitals, says that although it opposes FOCA, its hospitals would sit through open. Carol Keehan president of CHA said, “In multiplied communities, we are the only bloom facility. We in Catholic salubrity care are not going to dismantle that.” The Rev. John Paris, a Catholic bioethics expert at Boston College, said that both Obama and the bishops are playing to their audiences. “(A)ll that rhetoric is so overblown as to be silly,” Paris said, adding, “No political office is going to strike down conscience clauses. Thats superseded in our laws since 1673.” Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic law professor at Pepperdine University who controversially supported Obama, believes FOCA does not threaten conscience clauses. He said that Obamas “approach is to give emphasis to reducing the incidents of abortion” (Arnoldy, Christian technique Monitor, 12/5).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens tone approach Report, search the archives, or signal up for post delivery here. The Daily Womens fitness method Report is a free servicing of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board club.

&cast; 2008 The Advisory Board ensemble. All rights uncompanionable.