Photo: Personhood USA co-founder Keith Mason (Photo: personhoodusa.com)

Arkansas is among several states to face “fetal personhood” amendments in 2012. Personhood Arkansas, an affiliate of Personhood USA, recently submitted amendment language to the state that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception.

“No innocent person shall be denied the right to life,” reads the amendment. “With respect to the right to life, the word ‘person’ shall apply to all human beings, including the unborn, at every stage of their development.”

Though these personhood bills have cropped up across the country, many have failed due to vague language — most recently in Mississippi. Simply defining life from the moment of conception could leave the door open to unintended consequences. In addition to outlawing abortion, say critics, the bills could ban birth control and affect in vitro fertilization and disease research.

Last month, a Nevada judge rewrote his state’s personhood initiative, ruling that it was too vague. The Arkansas group says it has included language intended to specify what, exactly, the bill would affect. According to a press release, the Arkansas Personhood Amendment language “clarifies the pro-life position and the true effect of personhood in that mothers will continue to have access to life saving medical treatments” and specifically states: “This Amendment shall have no effect on medical treatment for life threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life.”

“We witnessed the misinformation tactics used by those who would continue the abortion carnage. Personhood Arkansas has submitted language that is concise and effective in our goals, and it addresses important concerns Arkansas voters may have,” said Personhood Arkansas Director Preston Dunn Jr., in a press release.

The group’s Amendment 26, which would have defined life as beginning at the moment of conception, was harshly criticized for being broad and vague. Though Personhood leaders claim they only intend to ban abortion, critics have argued that personhood measures could have negative effects on the use of birth control, in vitro fertilization and disease research.

Because the measure is so controversial (even in Mississippi, a state with only one abortion clinic), lawmakers have said that it might stand a better chance in the Legislature. Nearly 60 percent of Mississippi voters voted against the amendment, despite support from Gov. Haley Barbour and Governor-elect Phil Bryant.

In November, Barbour said that the state Legislature would have been a better place for the bill, as lawmakers could have corrected some of the ambiguities “If somebody had offered legislation in the Mississippi Legislature that says life begins at conception, that would pass,” said Barbour. “However, what has been put on the ballot is a little ambiguous.”

Bryant was recently quoted in USA Today as saying he would be “very surprised if a member of the Legislature didn’t introduce some legislation similar to [Amendment 26].”

Personhood USA’s Les Riley says his group plans to work closely with the Legislature, in an attempt to introduce a personhood bill through a different channel. “We’re going to work with the Legislature and reach out to Mississippians,” Riley told USA Today.

Personhood’s Florida affiliate failed to gather enough signatures for placement on the state’s 2010 ballot, but has already begun a new push, aiming for placement on the 2014 ballot.

Nevada law requires that all initiatives be accompanied by an official explanation of their effects, so that voters can make more informed decisions. But the explanation accompanying the Nevada personhood measure only discussed its effects on the legality of abortion and said nothing about the effects it could have on other health-care services.

Critics of personhood measures have long argued that redefining life could have several unintended consequences, potentially affecting cancer and disease research, as well as in vitro fertilization.

Yesterday’s ruling is likely a setback for personhood supporters, many of whom have argued that their measures would not limit women’s access to basic health-care services or birth control and would only ban abortion.

Despite those claims, Nevada District Judge James E. Wilson ordered the Nevada Prolife Coalition, the group sponsoring the amendment, to include the following language in the initiative before it can begin collecting signatures:

The initiative would protect a prenatal person regardless of whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or serious threats to the woman’s health or life, or when a woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the “pill;” and to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell research, which offers potential for treating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and others.

Though many have deemed the personhood movement “extreme,” it’s not just fringe groups that support the measures. Presidential candidates Michele Bachman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have all signed a pledge to support personhood.

The Nevada Prolife Coalition must collect 72,352 valid signatures by June to get the measure on the state’s 2012 ballot.

According to a spokesperson for Personhood’s Florida affiliate, the movement to place a personhood amendment on Florida’s 2014 ballot is currently underway.

The movie, which premiered last week in Des Moines, promotes a strategy of pursuing federal legislation that would grant civil rights to fetuses, on the grounds that their equal protection rights are protected by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, an idea championed by current presidential contender Newt Gingrich.

In a recent article, two physicians argue that the film is problematic because, in medicine, physicians must learn to separate their personal feelings from those of their patients.

Via ReligionDispatches.com:

Dr. Anthony Levatino, interviewed at length in the film, is an OB/GYN who formerly performed abortions. Levatino and his wife had fertility problems and were seeking to adopt a child; at one point he describes his regret as he was performing a first trimester abortion while he and his wife were undertaking that process. They eventually adopted a child who was later tragically killed after being hit by a car. Levatino describes a second trimester abortion he performed after the death of his daughter, after which he concludes about his patient, “I didn’t see her wonderful right to choose and I didn’t see what a great doctor I was helping her with her problem pregnancy.”

The Gift of Life draws on Levatino’s personal tragedy to portray his decision to stop performing abortions as a policy answer, rather than an individual, understandable response to grief. Dr. Daniel Grossman, senior associate at Ibis Reproductive Health, told me, “It is true that abortion providers often have conflicting feelings about the work we do.” But, he went on, “most of us have those feelings and are able to separate our personal feelings from those of our patients and what they need and want to do with their current pregnancy.”

Dr. Douglas Laube, Board Chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, echoed this view, describing Levatino’s reaction as “normal” given his circumstances, but noting that his patient’s reaction was not discussed. “I see it as a disconnect,” said Laube. “It does not connect logically with a reason not to support the right to choose. It’s his feelings versus her right to choose.”

Laube goes on to argue that the film peddles several abortion falsehoods, such as a claim that all fetuses feel pain and that abortion providers attempt to maximize the number of abortion procedures they perform, in order to profit from them:

The anti-choice activist Carol Everett claims she once worked for an abortion provider that aimed to perform three to five abortions on 13-18 year old girls so they would be accustomed to using abortion as a birth control method into adulthood. Dr. Laube called these claims “pure nonsense,” “pure fiction,” and “really a stretch.” He noted that abortion comprises 3-5% of Planned Parenthood’s budget, and that abortion is “certainly not a money-maker. At best, it’s a break-even.”

The fetal personhood movement, which aims to define life from the moment of conception, has swept the country in recent years. Personhood initiatives have cropped up in many states — most notably in Mississippi, where a personhood amendment was recently rejected by voters despite support from state policy-makers. In Florida, personhood organizers have told The Florida Independent that they are currently working toward placing an amendment on the state’s 2014 ballot.

In an interview conducted last month, Laube told the Independent that attempts to define human life from the moment of conception “flies in the face of common sense” and could have “wide-reaching impact to access to women’s health: cancer treatment, fertility treatment, birth control.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (FLORIDA INDEPENDENT/ Cooper Levey-Baker) 

The decision, which is still being considered before it is finally included, would require all health insurers to provide contraceptive services without co-payments. The decision includes an exemption for religious employers. However, Catholic groups believe that the exemption is “too limited” and would thus require many Catholic groups to provide services that are banned by the Catholic Church.

Catholic bishops and some Catholic groups have been condemning the decision. They have  asked that the exemption be open to more objectors, or that the decision be stricken in its entirety.

Now, the St. Petersburg Times reports that if the decision is not changed, Bishop Robert Lynch says ”the Diocese of St. Petersburg would drop health insurance for its approximately 2,300 employees, and instead give them money to find coverage themselves.”

Officials in the diocese believe that they would be one of the groups that would not be included in the exemption.

According to the Times, “Frank Murphy, spokesman for the Diocese of St. Petersburg, said church operations such as Catholic Charities serve people of all faiths. And not all employees are Catholic, including many teachers at diocesan schools.”

The Times reports:

“For the first time in my adult life, I foresee the possibility of some form of civil disobedience, and I am extremely uncomfortable at even the hint of such a thing,” Lynch said during Wednesday’s annual Red Mass at Tampa’s Sacred Heart Church, attended by two dozen judges and about 300 lawyers.

…

On his blog (blogs.dosp.org/bishoplynch) Lynch noted that diocese employees have a “generous” health care plan, one that does not cover contraceptives, the “morning-after” pill, or drugs like Viagra.

He also expressed fear that because the diocese is self-insured, that might disqualify it from the religious exemption. But a federal health official said Thursday that isn’t the case.

In his homily, which appears in full at his blog site, Lynch told the jurists of conflicts between church teachings and the laws of the land. “I have such a fear at this moment in time,” he said.

“As employers, we would be forced to provide in health care plans services and procedures which clearly are contrary to our beliefs and teachings,” he said.

“If they fail to shift in their present positions,” he said of federal officials, “then 2,300 employees of the Diocese of St. Petersburg will lose their health care coverage which they have come to treasure and rely upon.”

For many women, steep co-payments levied by their health insurers have deterred them from purchasing family planning services such as birth control pills in the past, a problem exacerbated by the country’s economic troubles.

A recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll conducted by Public Opinion and Survey Research Program showed that two-thirds of Americans agree with the federal government’s recent decision to include birth control in its list of preventive services.

Furthermore, according to research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, about “98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church.”

The Apple logo (Photo: 4.bp.blogspot.com)

The New York Times reports that Apple has released a statement claiming that the controversy over Siri, the new iPhone voice software, is the result of a glitch, and was not intentional.

This week, controversy emerged over a lack of information provided by Siri when it comes to helping women who are seeking abortions, emergency contraception and birth control, among other things. Bloggers, who initially discovered the glitch, found the exemption troubling, writing that Siri is typically very helpful in providing information on almost anything else.

Bloggers also found that the software, in some cases, directed women to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) when they were seeking an abortion. CPCs have been known to mislead women seeking abortions in an effort to persuade them not to have the procedure done. They are typically religious centers that offer little to no medical services.

However, the Times reports that none of this was deliberate:

The company attributed the problem to kinks in the product that were still being ironed out. Siri is officially still a beta or test product.

“Our customers want to use Siri to find out all types of information, and while it can find a lot, it doesn’t always find what you want,” said Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman for Apple, in a phone interview late Wednesday. “These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone. It simply means that as we bring Siri from beta to a final product, we find places where we can do better, and we will in the coming weeks.”

Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, announced yesterday that she sent a letter to the CEO of Apple voicing concern over aspects of the software. Anti-abortion advocates also commented on the news: One activist wrote a press release saying that she hopes “Apple remains steadfast and does not cave under any pressure brought by the abortion industry to start marketing abortion clinics.” The activist also said “this is a huge win for women and a significant step in the right direction.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (Photo: Flickr/US Mission Geneva)

This week Congress will hold yet another hearing addressing a grievance from Catholic bishops, this time about a recent loss of federal funds.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing on Thursday titled, “HHS and the Catholic Church: Examining the Politicization of Grants,” the committee’s schedule shows.

The hearing will discuss a decision made several weeks ago by a federal health agency to deny millions in federal funds for a charity run by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The funds were for the bishops’ relief program for victims of human trafficking. The group lost the money because it refused to refer victims for contraceptives or abortion services. Three other groups that provide a wider range of services to victims were awarded the grants instead.

The bishops have exercised their immense political power to garner congressional hearings on topics they take particular issue before. Earlier this month, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health met to discuss the federal government’s decision to require health insurers to cover birth control services without co-payments.

The debate that day centered on a provision that allows religious employers to opt out of the mandate, derided mostly by Catholic groups because they claim it is not broad enough. The bishops have led the charge in denouncing the decision.

The Washington Post reported that letters were sent to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius by “more than 30 Republican lawmakers,” arguing that the decision to defund the Catholic human trafficking relief program “was unfair to the Catholic group and might violate federal laws banning discrimination based on religion”:

Two of the letters are seeking internal HHS documents relating to the decision and one, sent Monday by Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), said his investigative committee may issue subpoenas if HHS doesn’t comply.

…

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops conference, said Friday that she welcomed the letters from Congress. “The more we look at this, the more concerned we are about it,” she said. “It appears the grant process was manipulated.”

One letter to Sebelius, by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and signed by 24 other senators, made a similar point. “The integrity and lawful administration of our federal grant process — particularly with respect to equal treatment of religious institutions — must not be compromised,” it said.

The Post previously reported that Health and Human Services officials have denied any anti-Catholic bias in their decision-making.

The bishops have become well known for using their political power to roll back important protections and legal rights, mostly in the realm of reproductive rights. The Huffington Post recently described the bishops as a “group of men with no real background in law or medicine, but blessed with a strong personal interest in women’s bodies, [that] have quietly influenced all of the major anti-abortion legislation over the past several years. “

House Bill 515, introduced early this year by state Rep. Ellen Story (D-Hampshire District), would amend a section of the “Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order” to legally allow unmarried persons to buy birth control or contraception from a pharmacist or to be prescribed a form a birth control from a pharmacist. The law currently reads (emphasis added):

A registered physician may administer to or prescribe for any married person drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception. A registered pharmacist actually engaged in the business of pharmacy may furnish such drugs or articles to any married person presenting a prescription from a registered physician. A public health agency, a registered nurse, or a maternity health clinic operated by or in an accredited hospital may furnish information to any married person as to where professional advice regarding such drugs or articles may be lawfully obtained.

The Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization for Women describes the bill as outdated and long-irrelevant, yet still technical law that should be modified:

This bill would repeal outdated, unconstitutional, and archaic laws that remain on the books in Massachusetts, including a pre-Roe v. Wade abortion ban, a medically unjustified and burdensome hospital mandate, and a birth control ban for unmarried couples. It would ensure that abortion rights are upheld in the Commonwealth should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned.

An Harvard Crimson news article from 1970 addressed controversies to the law more than four decades ago:

The Committee on Social Welfare held a public hearing last Thursday on House Bill 520, which would repeal the current Massachusetts laws on birth control. The committee listened to testimony that Massachusetts is one of two states which still prohibit the distribution of birth control information and devices to unmarried people. They heard ecology workers describe the dangers of the population explosion. They heard a psychologist explain that the current laws discriminate against the poor. They heard a gynecologist state that laws prohibiting contraceptives encourage illegal abortions. And they heard a doctor in the Department of Public Health testify that the current laws disqualify Massachusetts from Federal funding because they discriminate between married and unmarried people.

The committee was treated to a demonstration that the laws are selectively enforced. Debby Vollmer, a member of Worchester Women’s Liberation, opened an innocent-looking brown paper bag and held up a package of contraceptive foam she had bought in a drug store down the street. She pointed out that drug stores and department stores throughout the state sell contraceptive items to anyone, a violation of the law which the state ignores. At the same time Bill Baird is sentenced to prison for giving contraceptive foam to an unmarried woman.

Baird was present at the hearing and testified briefly for the bill. The committee seemed sympathetic to him, but the reason became evident as opponents of the bill began to testify. They claimed that the legalization of contraceptive care would destroy the morals of the citizens of Massachusetts. Two state representatives, a housewife, a businessman and a Catholic priest presented this viewpoint. The committee seemed particularly interested in whether the priest agreed that enforcement of the laws is discriminatory. He said yes, that the laws should be strictly enforced, that the state probably should crack down on stores which continue to sell contraceptives. The hearing ended on this note.

[...]

THE HEARING on House Bill 520 was probably typical of Massachusetts politics, and it may be naive to hope that it could have been any different. It was a farce, but it was only momentarily funny. The women faced with the prospect of bearing unwanted children will not be laughing.

Story’s bill would also repeal parts of the law that stipulates penalties for those who attempt to “procure miscarriage“; distribute advertising “for the purpose of causing or procuring the miscarriage of a woman pregnant with child”; or lend or sell “an instrument or other article intended to be used for self-abuse, or any drug, medicine, instrument or article whatever for the prevention of conception or for causing unlawful abortion.”

Additionally, the bill would remove language from a current abortion law that mandates an abortion after 13 weeks be performed in a hospital.

Minnesota’s Catholic bishops sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Thursday urging her department to drop a mandate on health insurance companies to cover birth control as part of their health plans.

The bishops argue that entities like Catholic Charities would have to offer insurance plans to their employees that offer coverage for contraceptives or else stop providing health benefits to employees.“While we support providing access to those services which can truly prevent disease or disability for woman such as pap smears and mammograms, we join other persons of good will who strenuously object to mandatory coverage for contraceptives and sterilization procedures,” the bishops wrote in the letter (PDF).

In August, the Obama administration announced that it would mandate that private health insurance cover women’s health care services such as cancer screenings, domestic violence support and birth control. The Catholic Church believes that birth control methods other than the rhythm method are sinful.

The bishops said the rule would “require taxpayers and providers to act against deeply-held convictions regarding the sanctity of life, as the promotion and provision of drugs like “Ella” (ulipristal acetate) and other abortifacient agents are enabled by this mandate.”

Coverage of abortion services is not included in the mandate. Calling drugs like Ella abortifacients is not the legal definition; they don’t actually cause abortions. However, as Christianity Today noted, the Catholic Church and other conservative Christians view the drug as abortion-inducing from a moral perspective.

The bishops also object to the current “conscience clause” in the mandate.

A religious organization is exempt from the mandate so long as it “has as the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets, and primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.”

The bishops worry that religious charities would either have to provide health coverage that offers birth control or opt not t cover their employees at all.

“By exempting only those who employ and/or serve persons of the same religious tradition from its mandates, Catholic health care providers—the safety net for many of our marginalized sisters and brothers—cannot enjoy the exception without abandoning our mission, to the significant detriment of those in need.”

“Requiring Catholic individuals and institutions to pay for and provide abortion drugs and contraceptives contrary to Catholic teaching in the name of ‘reproductive autonomy’ is an unprecedented attack on the cherished liberties of religious and associational freedom,” said Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Roman Catholic Church in Minnesota.

Minnesota’s Catholic bishops are the latest in a long list of Catholic institutions that have spoken out against the policy, as have Catholic hospitals. At least 18 Catholic institutions of higher learning have come out against the rule as well as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But, as our sister site the Florida Independent recently reported, not all Catholics agree with the hierarchy. In fact, some see the exception for religious institutions as dangerous for women.

“In allowing religious institutions to refuse to include contraceptive services in the health insurance plans they offer their employees, the Obama administration has once again sided with the Catholic bishops over the needs of women and their families,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. “The multi-billion dollar Catholic health care industry has a lot of influence with this administration, influence that it has now used to allow religious institutions to ride roughshod over the needs of their workers. Not only that, it ignores the consciences of those who decide that to use a modern method of family planning is what is best for them and their families.”

In fact, recent polling suggests that most Catholic women could benefit from the mandate. A poll released in April showed that only 2 percent of sexually active women followed Catholic teaching on birth control. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used some form of birth control that is banned by the Church.

In statement for the Catholic Church’s “Respect Life Month,” Cardinal Daniel DiNardo released a statement saying that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is exhibiting antagonism toward religion and has displayed a “distorted view of sexuality.”

DiNardo, who is the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, has taken issue with a decision by Health and Human Services to include birth control in a list of preventive care services.

Even though the department included a religious exemption in the decision, the Bishops’ feel it is “too limited.” The group recently released a 35-page comment claiming that the decision violates the First Amendment’s religion clause, and they requested that the mandate be rescinded “in its entirety.”

In his comment (.pdf) released yesterday, DiNardo criticized Health and Human Services and also went after birth control and contraception:

The same forces, aided by advertising and entertainment media, promote a selfish and demeaning view of human sexuality, by extolling the alleged good of sexual activity without love or commitment. This view of sex as “free” of commitment or consequences has no place for openness to new life. Hence contraceptives are promoted even to young teens as though they were essential to women’s well-being, and abortion defended as the “necessary” back-up plan when contraceptives fail. And fail they do. Studies report that most women seeking abortions were using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Again and again, studies show that increasing access to contraception fails to reduce rates of unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

Both these trends—a distorted view of sexuality and a disdain for the role of religion—are exhibited by the Department of Health and Human Services’ recent decision on the “preventive services” to be mandated in virtually all private health plans under the new health care law. The Department ruled that such mandated services will include surgical sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices—including the abortifacient drug “Ella,” a close analogue to the abortion pill RU-486.

The decision is wrong on many levels. Preventive services are aimed at preventing diseases (e.g., by vaccinations) or detecting them early to aid prompt treatment (e.g., screening for diabetes or cancer). But pregnancy is not a disease. It is the normal, healthy state by which each of us came into the world. Far from preventing disease, contraceptives can have serious health consequences of their own, for example, increasing the risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease, such as AIDS, increasing the risk of breast cancer from excess estrogen, and of blood clots that can lead to stroke from synthetic progestin. Mandating such coverage shows neither respect for women’s health or freedom, nor respect for the consciences of those who do not want to take part in such problematic initiatives.

The “religious employer” exemption offered by the Department is so extremely narrow that it protects almost no one. Catholic institutions providing health care and other services to the needy could be forced to fire their non-Catholic employees and cease serving the poor and vulnerable of other faiths—or stop providing health coverage at all. It has been said that Jesus himself, or the Good Samaritan of his famous parable, would not qualify as “religious enough” for the exemption, since they insisted on helping people who did not share their view of God.

The decision to include contraception in a list of preventive care forces insurance companies to cover birth control without requiring co-pays. For many women, steep co-pays have deterred them from purchasing family planning services.

Jon O’Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice, has previously pointed out that the majority of Catholic women have not been convinced by the Church’s hard line on birth control.

“What’s really going on,” O’Brien said, “is that they have failed to convince Catholics in their own churches. So, [the Bishops] have to go through political lobbying to stop Catholics from using contraception.”

Polling found that 66 percent of Americans agree with the federal government’s recent decision to include birth control in its list of preventive services. Furthermore, according to  research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, about “98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church.”