Nebraska enacted two extremely restrictive abortion policies this year, including a criminal law banning abortions at twenty-weeks gestation as of October 2010, with exceptions only to save a woman's life or prevent the risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.  There are no exceptions for mental health, fetal anomalies, rape or incest, and providers may not perform an abortion even if they believe the woman may commit suicide.  The second law places complex and vague requirements on providers in screening patients and communicating risks to women seeking legal abortions, with a possible $10,000 fine for each risk factor that the provider fails to disclose.  Planned Parenthood of the Heartland challenged the law in federal court and the law has been permanently enjoined. 

Oklahoma has continued to restrict women's access to abortion with HB 2780, enacted into law in 2010 over the veto of the governor, and requiring providers to perform ultrasounds on all patients, displaying the image to each woman while also providing a edverbal description of the image (including describing its "members and internal organs").  The law has been enjoined since July pending a challenge by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of abortion providers and their patients.  

The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) proposed drastic cuts to Medicaid programs that provide family planning and maternity support, in response to Gov. Chris Gregoire's executive order for 6.3 percent across-the-board cuts. The State will end the Take Charge Medicaid family planning program as of February 28, 2011, which provides one year of no-cost family planning services to 43,000 uninsured residents who are ineligible for other Medicaid coverage. Maternity Support Services also faces cuts, which covers one third of pregnant women in the state. Additional cuts may come as the state grapples with the 2011-2013 budget and an anticipated 3 billion dollar shortfall. 

The midterm elections made things neither better nor worse for reproductive justice in Georgia.  Conservatives took every statewide office in Georgia for the first time in over 60 years, but through the efforts of groups like Planned Parenthood, 6 new pro-choice candidates were elected to the house, while only 2 pro-choice incumbents lost their seats.[1] 

FACT: Young people ages 15-24 contract almost half the nation's 19 million new STIs every year, and the CDC estimates that one in four young women ages 15-19 has an STI.[1]

FACT: Approximately one in five teens reports some kind of abuse in a romantic relationship.  Girls who experience dating violence have sex earlier than their peers are less likely to use to birth control and are more likely to engage in a wide variety of high-risk behaviors.[2]

FACT:Providence, Rhode Island has the third highest repeat teen pregnancy rate in the nation.[3] 

Armed with these sobering facts and a growing concern that young people in Rhode Island were not receiving medically accurate, age-appropriate information to make informed choices about sex, a group of individuals and organizations formed a coalition in the summer of 2009 called Healthy Kids Rhode Island(HKRI).  Their mission was to promote the instruction of comprehensive sex education in the state's public schools.

Since its inception, HKRI has grown to a member-based coalition comprised of over 20 organizations from a wide variety of disciplines, including health, advocacy, policy, and youth organizations.  In a short time span, it has received funding from a local foundation, Women's Fund of Rhode Island (http://www.wfri.org/), met with local stakeholders to help educate the community about the importance of comprehensive sex education, created presentations and brochures about this issue, worked with the national organization Advocates for Youth (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/) to develop a sex ed messaging training, held focus groups with local youth, and met with state legislators about Rhode Island's laws and regulations regarding sex education. 

Finally, HKRI has most recently been busy with preparations to launch two pilot projects in the spring of 2011-one which will develop a sex education curriculum at a local all-girls' middle school, Sophia Academy (http://www.sophia-academy.org/), and another that will work with local youth to help them acquire advocacy skills to more effectively promote comprehensive sex education in their respective schools.

Unlike some other states, Rhode Island is fortunate to be free from the confines of an abstinence-only curriculum; Heritage of Rhode Island, which ran abstinence-only programs in a handful of schools and received close to $1 million in federal funding, quietly left the state in 2007.  (http://tinyurl.com/29dsj5n) 

Moreover, while Rhode Island's statutory laws could theoretically be stronger in mandating a comprehensive sex education curriculum in health classes, the state's rules and regulations regarding health and family life courses are extremely thorough.  (http://tinyurl.com/23jh67d)   Indeed, they specify that health courses shall include "the responsibilities of family membership and adulthood, including issues related to reproduction, abstinence, dating and dating violence, marriage and parenthood as well as information about sexually transmitted diseases, sexuality and sexual orientation, as part of comprehensive sexuality education."

The larger issue is that teachers and schools are not necessarily informed about the standards for a sex education curriculum-or they lack the expertise or resources to pull a curriculum together.  One of HKRI's goals is to help fill these gaps by providing information and education to school districts and teachers so that they are aware of the state's health standards and have the tools to adequately provide medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education instruction.

You can read more about HKRI at its website (www.healthykidsri.com) or on its Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Healthy-Kids-Rhode-Island/109205472456086).  Contact Vanessa at healthykidsri dot com if you have any further questions or would like additional information.

During the campaign period gearing up toward this November's elections, candidates concentrated on what they saw as the major issues: the recent economic downturn, financial reform, and health care reform. With the country scrambling for the future of the political spectrum in a manner that is increasingly theatrical, the arena of reproductive rights has never been more important-both to constituents and campaigning politicians.

One of the less prominent yet present issues addressed in the state-wide campaigns this year has been abortion.[1] Media outlets and political analysts have taken note of candidates using "wedge issues," issues that are not considered to be a main focus of the political climate, but rather address the concerns of a smaller wedge-of-the-political-pie group, to gain the support-and vote of-on the fence constituents.[2] The significance of the discussion of abortion as a wedge issue throughout the most recent elections is two-fold. First, it allows candidates to utilize an issue that is not a focus issue of the election to attract both voters whose political loyalties have yet to be declared and voters who may be considering making a political switch in light of the recent recession. Second, it gives constituents the opportunity to consider candidates' stances on a topic that, while important to many individuals, has not been thoroughly addressed in the current campaign environment. Where reproductive rights are particularly concerned, one notable group has candidates sitting up and taking notice: independent female voters.[3] In an effort to regain the support of those groups, many Democratic candidates have extended efforts to draw the attention of independent, female voters through discussion of reproductive rights issues, and the issue of abortion has been at the forefront of this discussion.

Unlike many of their political counterparts, independent voters are known for their tendency to wait for a longer period of time during a campaign period to decide on which candidate to support.[4] This trend allows candidates looking to gain the independent vote the opportunity to push last-minute hot-button issues in an attempt to gain the attention and possibly support of this slice of the voter pie. While both female voters and independent voters have historically leaned towards the Democratic Party, this year's midterm elections noted that many women and independents considered switching sides.[5] Gallup polling in October revealed that the Republican Party gained an increase of 13 percentage points in female voters, compared to the 2006 elections.[6] The Pew Research Center additionally released a report in October showing that Republicans had gained by 8 percentage points with likely female voters, but had also gained 14 percentage points with likely independent voters, compared with the 2006 elections.[7]

In California, incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer's campaign focused heavily on social issues, such as abortion rights, and made sure to point out her Republican opponent Carly Fiorina's opposition to the right to choose. The National Partnership for Women and Families reported that Boxer's efforts left her significantly more popular among women, leaving her opponent searching for ways to "chip away a few points here and there" with female voters.[8]

Addressing some of the extreme opposition to abortion and the right to choose, Democrats throughout the nation have utilized television ad campaigns to call attention to opponents who do not support the right to choice in any case-even in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.  Commercials with stark images of tear-streaked faces and women behind bars may have seemed harsh, but clearly delivered the message. During a televised debate in Minnesota, state Democratic Sen. Tarryl Clark responded to questions regarding her endorsement by EMILY's List by denying support for partial-birth abortion.  She called attention to her efforts to push for more support for teen pregnancy programs, noting that by providing support and education to teens, she hoped to reduce the overall rate of abortion.[9]

New York Democratic Candidate for Governor Andrew Cuomo ran a series of television ads depicting that, if opponent Carl Paladino were to be elected, women would live without the right to choose in any situation and would risk criminal prosecution.[10] Kevin Rader, Democratic Senate candidate for Florida ran similar ads, calling attention to his opponent's support for a law requiring women to pay for and view a sonogram prior to obtaining an abortion.[11] Candidate for Governor in New Mexico Diane Denish ran a series of radio ads equating the election of her opponent with putting women in prison for exercising their right to choose.[12]  The issue of abortion, while not considered a major issue for this election, is clearly being used here to garner the votes of specific voter subgroups.

However, Democratic candidates aren't the only ones looking to use reproductive rights debate to attract the votes of a different subgroup-undecided voters. Republican candidates used reproductive rights rhetoric to criticize their opponents' stances. In New Mexico, Diane Denish's opponent, Republican Susana Martinez, sent out statewide mailers calling-out Denish's opposition to legislation that requires parental notification in the case where a minor is seeking an abortion.[13] Most notably, D.C. District Republican Missy Reilly Smith used images of bloody late-term fetuses and dismembered fetal limbs in her political commercials in order to shock voters into paying attention.[14] Utilizing a federal law that requires that broadcast television networks must air political ads for any timeslot that the candidate can afford, Smith saturated the Washington D.C. area, receiving a barrage of media and political attention.[15] And although the G.O.P chose to distance itself from her, she claims the ads led to a boost in donations to her campaign, of over $50,000.[16]

A brief review of the campaign tactics utilized by both Democratic and Republican candidates reveals that political contenders have been attempting to garner support from independent, female and on-the-fence voters. Reproductive rights, and specifically the right to choose, have been a focus of state-wide campaigns with the intention of raising a hot-button topic and the attention that follows. From emphasizing support for particular programs to extreme television ad series, candidates' concern over losing voter ground and gaining the political wedge of independent and female voter support was a clear factor in the 2010 midterm election season.

Dante Costa, Philadelphia, PA, Newsletter Coordinator
Cardozo School of Law, J.D. anticipated '11

Katherine Minarik, J.D., Chicago, IL, Newsletter Coordinator
University of Pennsylvania Law School, '06

Sabrina Andrus, J.D. Oakland, CA

Seattle University School of Law, '08

Jina Dhillon, J.D., Chair, Chapel Hill, NC
UNC-Chapel Hill School of Law, '10

Jena Jolissaint, Ph.D., Atlanta, GA

Georgia State University, J.D. anticipated '12

Erin Schultz, J.D. Bay Area, CA
University of Michigan Law School, '07

Jennifer Smith, J.D. Sacramento, CA
UC Davis School of Law, '07