xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CHOICE-NET REPORT For Week ending April 23, 1994 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CHOICE-NET REPORT is a (usually) weekly update on reproductive rights issues distributed through E-mail, Women's Wire, gopher.WELL.com, Usenet groups alt.activism, talk.abortion, soc.women, and other Internet channels. Please reprint, distribute and TAKE ACTION. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx BIG SHOES TO FILL On April 6, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun announced his intention to resign from the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of this term. Although he authored many decisions during his 24-year career, Blackmun is best remembered for his landmark 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade, which recognized the fundamental constitutional right to choose abortion. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) was at the top of the list of possible replacements, but on April 12, he took himself out of the running. Other potential candidates include: Judge Richard S. Arnold of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit; Jose A. Cabranes, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in Connecticut; Solicitor General Drew S. Days 3d, formerly a professor at Yale Law School; Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, formerly at Duke University Law School; Judith S. Kaye, chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Judge Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Attorney General Janet Reno. Please write a letter to President Clinton urging him to select a Justice committed to the principles of individual liberty and equality, including the ability of all persons to make private decisions about reproduction and childbearing. Remember, you can send email to the President at president@whitehouse.gov. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ANTI-CHOICE ACTIVISTS CHALLENGE CLINIC INJUNCTION On April 27, the U.S. Supreme court will hear oral argument in Madsen v. Women's Health Center, an appeal by three anti-choice activists seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court's unanimous decision upholding an order protecting access to women's health clinics. In April 1993 at the request of the Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida, Circuit Judge Robert McGregor issued a permanent injunction against obstructing access to the clinic. Judge Mcgregor's order also requires anti-choice protestors to remain thrity-six feet from the clinic grounds, prohibits physically approaching any person seeking health services within 300 feet of the facility, bars excesssive noise during business hours, and creates a 300-foot zone around the homes of clinic workers. Anti-choice activists challenged the injunction, arguing that it is uncontitutionally vague and overbroad and violates their First Amendment rights. In affirming the trial court ruling in October 1993, the Florida High Court found that it was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction necessary to protect women's health. The U.S. Court of Appeals held that Judge McGregor's injunction seems to be unconstituional. The conflicting state and federal decisions have caused confusion in the city of Melbourne. At times, officials have refused to enforce the injunction. for this reason, the women's health clinics did not oppose U.S. Supreme Court review of the Florida Supreme Court decision, which was granted on January 21. Several organizations have filed amicus briefs in the case including the American Jewish Committee, NARAL, the National Women's Law Center, the Women's Law Project, and Women's Legal Defense Fund. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Health Care Reform Update On March 23, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, chaired by California Rep Pete Stark, passed a health care reform proposal that apparently satistfies Clinton's bottom-line demand of "universal coverage" for a standard package of health benefits. The Stark plan specifically includes coverage of family planning services and supplies as well as pregnancy-related care, but neither of these terms is defined in the bill itself. The debate now moves to the full Ways and Means Committee, whose chairman Rep. Dan Rostenkowski has made it clear that he intends to report out a "much more conservative" bill than either the President's plan or Stark's. Meanwhile, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) appears to have taken personal control of health care legislation after the subcommittee appeared to be in deadlock. Dingell has crafted yet another alternative to the Clinton plan which would make membership in the regional health alliances voluntary while apparently keeping the identical benefits package proposed by Clinton. The cost paid by families would be highter under Dingell's bill. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A Possible Solutions to RU486 dilema PROBLEM: Women want RU486 but the patent holder won't sell it in the U.S. POSSIBLE SOLUTION: On March 28 in a letter to the New York Times, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY) announced his intention to introduce legislation that would "provide for subjecting a patent for a pharmaceutical to a compulsory-licensing procedure." In other words, a pharmaceutical company could be forced to license it's product in the U.S. whether it wants to or not. This would happen in a circumstance where "the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines (1) that a patent holder "has not taken all reasonable steps toward the commercial marketing" of the patented drug and (2) that 'the availability of the product to the public is of vital importance to the public health or welfare." Under these circumstances "any pharmaceutical company could manufacture and sell the drug. A company that did so would be required to pay royalities, in an amount to be determined by the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to represent fair compensation to the patent holder. This compulsory-licensing procedure, would be akin to to that now in place with respect to music copyrights. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx MAY 18, HOLD THE DATE On May 18 pro-choice folks across the country will be calling their representatives to express their views on reproductive rights and health care reform. More details in the next issue of the CHOICE-NET REPORT xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Information Sources: California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League-North, Alan Guttmacher Institute, Reproductive Freedom News, Culture Watch, various Congresspersons, various newspapers, C-Span, CNN, AP, and UPI. Editor: Kathy Watkins, Administrative Director, CARAL-North If you wish to be added or deleted from the E-mail distribution list, please E-mail: dtv@well.com .