ACLU-NJ News - Reproductive Freedom

'Abstinence Only' Policy Puts Teens at Risk

This video features
interviews with ACLU staff
from across the
organization concerning
the role of reproductive
freedom in ensuring the
full-range of civil
liberties.

The following op-ed appeared in The Star Ledger on January 22, 2008. It was written by ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs.

Thirty-five years after the Roe vs. Wade decision, while control over women's bodies still gets hurled around like a political football, one thing we should all rally around is working to minimize unintended pregnancies.

Each year in the United States, nearly 750,000 teenagers 15 to 19 become pregnant. Unintended pregnancy has a profound impact on women and girls, imperiling their education, narrowing their future employment opportunities and limiting their long-term earning potential.

Society pays as well. The federal government alone spends $9 billion annually to help families that began with a teenage birth.

Sadly, many women -- especially poor women and teenagers -- still lack the basic education and access to reproductive health care that can reduce unintended pregnancies as well as life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases.

Yet, instead of promoting comprehensive sex education, the federal government aggressively funds "abstinence-only until marriage" programs that fail teenagers by withholding information they need to make healthy, mature decisions about sex.

To receive federal funding, abstinence-only programs must have the "exclusive purpose" of teaching the benefits of abstinence. They may not advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.

Thus, recipients of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds operate under a gag rule that censors vitally needed information. Grantees are forced to omit any mention of topics such as contraception, abortion and AIDS or to present them in an incomplete and therefore inaccurate fashion.

In fiscal year 2006, the federal government lavished $3.6 million in grants on New Jersey organizations to deliver abstinence-only programs to students and young people. Nationwide, some $87.5 million is spent annually on abstinence- only programs, most of it taxpayers' dollars.

At best, it is money wasted.

A recent study conducted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by Mathematica Policy Research, a leading sexual health researcher, found that teens who participated in these programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not. Worse yet, other studies have shown that teens in some abstinence-only programs are less inclined to use contraception once they do have sex.

Abstinence-only programs also conflict with New Jersey's well-regarded comprehensive core curriculum for sex education. Recognizing this, in 2006 the Corzine administration wisely declined to reapply for the portion of federal abstinence-only funding distributed by the state. The state's letter declining the funding pointed out that because of contradictions between the state and the federal government approaches, New Jersey schools might need to add class time simply to correct inaccuracies included in abstinence-only programs.

Though more than a dozen other states have similarly rejected abstinence-only funding, state control over this aspect of public education is strictly limited: Most of the money goes directly from the federal government to the community organizations that conduct the programs in schools.

Cash-strapped school systems like Newark public schools, long straining to overcome immense educational and economic hardships, are all too willing to let these federally funded programs into their classrooms, and it's teens who pay the price.

With one of the highest teen pregnancy rates and lowest graduation rates in the nation, Newark teenagers desperately need quality, comprehensive sex education so they are as prepared as possible to make smart decisions about sexual activity, including when to say no and when to use contraception.

Despite this, the Newark public schools allow the Several Sources Foundation into health classes once a week to present a program called "The Choice Game," a nine- week curriculum that never mentions condoms and that awards students a sterling silver ring in ex change for pledging to remain abstinent until marriage.

If the stakes weren't so high, it would be hard to take "The Choice Game" seriously; evidently, few other New Jersey school districts do. Montclair doesn't have the program in its schools and neither does Millburn, Maplewood-South Orange, Elizabeth or Plainfield.

In fact, I don't know of any other New Jersey school district that is so desperate for grant money or free "teaching" that it will subject its students to this ineffective, insidious program that can threaten students' health and futures.

"The Choice Game" and similar abstinence-only programs illustrate a larger point -- namely, that the young people of Newark and elsewhere deserve the kind of information that will help them endure, thrive and, in some cases, survive to adulthood. They deserve equal access to objective, relevant and medically accurate sex education.

After all, choice isn't a game.

Additional Information

How Far Women Have Come Since Roe v. Wade (2008)

How Far Women Have Come Since Roe v. Wade

This video features
interviews with ACLU staff
from across the
organization concerning
the role of reproductive
freedom in ensuring the
full-range of civil
liberties.

The following op-ed appeared in the Bergen Record on January 22, 2008. It was written by ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs.

The strides made by women in New Jersey politics have recently made headlines

Come election day, abortion will likely be on voters' minds as candidates pull out the abortion card to cast aspersions on their opponents or stake claim to a constituency. Some voters will vote for or against candidates because of their position on the issue. Few, however, will consider what is really at stake in the abortion question: women's equality.

Roe v. Wade turns 35 today. With this anniversary we mark not only 35 years of reproductive freedom, but 35 years of impressive gains in the fight for women's equality.

Granted, these were not perfect years. Not all women have had equal access to reproductive health care: Poor women, teens and women living in rural communities have increasingly faced real obstacles because of government restrictions. Likewise, not all women have benefited equally in the expansion of women's access to higher education, better paying jobs or other socioeconomic gains.

And as with the fight for reproductive freedom, the struggle for women's equality is far from over.

Nevertheless, these decades have witnessed important advances for many women. The numbers alone tell a significant piece of the story: Thirty-five years ago, there were 15 women in Congress. Today, 92 women sit in Congress, including the first Madame Speaker.

In 1973, the number of women who had ever been governor totaled three. As of today, 26 women have served as governor.

And in the race for president, for the first time in our nation's history, a woman is one of the leading contenders for the nomination of a major political party.

Grand progress statewide

The strides made by women in New Jersey politics have recently made headlines, with the proportion of women in our state Legislature climbing to 15th in the nation, up from 43rd in 2004. The nine women in the Senate and 25 in the Assembly elected in November constitute 28 percent of the 120-member Legislature.

The political arena has not been alone in this transformation. Women make up 57 percent of college students (up from 42 percent in 1970) and are obtaining advanced degrees in record numbers. In the mid-Seventies, women made up only 16 percent of medical school graduates; today they constitute nearly 50 percent. Likewise, women holding science and engineering doctoral degrees have more than quadrupled since the late Sixties.

The ranks of female Fortune 500 CEOs have grown from one in 1973 to 10 in 2006.

The timing of these advances is not serendipitous. At the core of women's equality is the ability to control whether and when we have children. The legalization of contraception in the Sixties and abortion in the Seventies fostered women's ability to make important life decisions about themselves and their families.

This fact is not lost on the only two women ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor co-authored an opinion preserving Roe in 1992 that acknowledged, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."

And just last year, in a powerful dissent to a Supreme Court decision upholding the first-ever federal ban on certain abortion procedures, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passionately argued that the core of the right to abortion "center[s] on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

Connection lost

Yet, as we mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the connection between reproductive rights and gender equality is lost in the political wrangling over abortion.

It is time to step back and reexamine the role access to birth control and abortion plays not only in opening up the classrooms, boardrooms and legislatures to women, but to ensuring women's equality more broadly.

It is time to refocus the conversation on fairness and opportunity so that we all can make meaningful decisions about whether and when to bear children.

The political, economic and social life of our democracy depends on it.

Additional Information

'Abstinence Only' Policy Puts Teens at Risk (2008)

ACLU Applauds Governor Corzine's Signing of Pharmacy Bill

TRENTON, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded Governor Jon Corzine's decision to sign a bill into law that will help ensure women's ability to access birth control at the pharmacy. The bill, sponsored by Senator Fred Madden and Assemblywoman Linda Stender, makes New Jersey one of a handful of states to protect patient's ability to access prescriptions at the pharmacy.

"Today's law strikes an important balance between protecting patient's health and religious freedom," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU-NJ.

The pharmacy access law requires pharmacies to fill prescriptions for in-stock drugs or devices without undue delay, despite the sincerely held moral, philosophical or religious beliefs of an individual pharmacist. Pharmacies employing pharmacists who object to filling prescriptions can accommodate the objection so long as the pharmacy ensures that customers receive their prescriptions, including birth control, at the pharmacy without undue delay.

"Access to safe and effective contraception is a central component of basic health care for women," said Jacobs. "This law will go a long way toward ending sex discrimination at the pharmacy."

The ACLU's long-held advocacy for both reproductive rights and religious liberty uniquely positions the organization to address this issue. In April, the ACLU released a report, "Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights: Accessing Birth Control at the Pharmacy," which examines legal questions raised when a pharmacist or pharmacy refuses to provide contraception based on a religious objection.

The report is available online at: http://tinyurl.com/2pms2q

Abortion Rights: Where Do We Go From Here?

Abortion Rights:

Where Do We Go From Here?

A discussion of the impact of the recent
Supreme Court decision on the future of abortion rights
and strategies for supporters of women's choice.

A panel discussion featuring:

Lisa Quackenbush
Past Chair, Reproductive Rights Task Force
National Organization for Women, New Jersey
Caitlin Borgmann
Board Trustee, Reproductive Freedom Activist, Law Professor
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
Phyllis Kinsler
President/CEO
Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey

Thursday, September 20, 7:30 pm

Rutgers University
Ruth Dill Johnson Crockett Building - Center for Women's Programs
162 Ryders Lane, Room 104
New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Sponsors:
Middlesex County National Organization for Women (NOW)
Rutgers Department of Women's and Gender Studies
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

ACLU-NJ Praises Court Decision Protecting Reproductive Freedom, Free Speech

TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissing a medical malpractice lawsuit that could have improperly forced physicians to give a non-medical, value-laden speech to their patients before performing an abortion. The ACLU called the decision a victory for reproductive rights and free speech in New Jersey.

"We are pleased that the court dismissed this frivolous lawsuit, which had no basis in law or medicine," said Brigitte Amiri, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "This case was nothing more than an underhanded attempt to turn doctors into ideological mouthpieces and subject women to non-medical moral judgments."

In 1998, Rosa Acuna brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor in New Jersey, claiming that he had failed to properly inform her at the time of her abortion that the embryo was a "complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being" with whom she had "an existing relationship," and his failure to do so caused her emotional distress. According to court papers, Acuna, who had two children prior to her abortion, stated that at the time of her abortion she understood that she was pregnant and signed a form consenting to the procedure.

"Today's victory sends a message that New Jersey will not tolerate backdoor efforts to curtail reproductive rights or free speech," said Ed Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "We will not allow the anti-choice lobby to force its moral or theological beliefs upon others and to intimidate doctors or women with lawsuits that are without merit."

In its unanimous decision, the court noted, "we know of no common law duty requiring a physician to instruct the woman that the embryo is an 'existing human being,' and suggesting that an abortion is tantamount to murder. There is not even remotely a consensus among New Jersey's medical community or citizenry that plaintiff's assertions are medical facts, as opposed to firmly held, moral philosophical, and religious beliefs."

Acuna's lawsuit is one of three instances where anti-choice foes have insisted that doctors must read a similar script to their patients prior to performing an abortion. A class-action medical malpractice lawsuit with similar claims was recently brought in Illinois, and in South Dakota, reproductive rights advocates are currently challenging a law that may require doctors to read language identical to that found in this case.

Today's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court only reaches the issue of whether Acuna's malpractice case should go to a jury trial. Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if it will consider a separate issue in the case regarding the legitimacy of a federal equal protection challenge involving New Jersey's wrongful death statute.

Today's case is Acuna v. Turkish (Docket No. 59, 525). Lawyers on the ACLU's friend-of-the-court brief include Amiri and Talcott Camp of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and Barocas of the ACLU of New Jersey.