What an incredible night. Voters in South Dakota, Colorado, and California stopped three ballot measures that would have seriously threatened the ability of women and families to make private health care decisions. While these initiatives were fought vote-by-vote in each state, they were battles that were won for all of us.

The victories were decisive: in South Dakota, the split was 55 to 45 percent against a ban on nearly all abortions, and in Colorado, 73 to 27 percent said no to an amendment that would have not only prohibited abortions but could have been used to block stem cell research and curtail access to in vitro fertilization and certain forms of contraception, among other reproductive health services.

The fight in California was more of a nail biter. For the third time, voters in California were asked to consider a measure that would have severely restricted teenagers’ access to abortion care. In the end, 52 to 48 percent of voters understood that even if we would want our daughters to come to us if they were pregnant and decided to have an abortion, the most important thing is that they can get safe, quality medical care without delay.

These are a huge victories for all Americans, sending a strong message to our elected officials that our government should protect not interfere with personal decisions about our health and families. We may not all feel the same about abortion, but we can agree that these are private decisions. Everyone’s life and circumstances are different; we must respect people’s personal choices even if we wouldn’t make the same decision.

Today the mandate is clear: we need to stop the political wrangling over abortion and start focusing on building a world where everyone has the resources and opportunity to decide what makes for a good life, and to live that life. When it comes to our reproductive health and lives this means everyone has access to a continuum of services — from honest sex education to affordable birth control to prenatal care to child care assistance to the option of abortion. It is now in our hands to ensure that the freedoms and opportunities enjoyed by some become a reality for all.

In her searing dissent in the most recent reproductive rights case to go before the U.S. Supreme Court — Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) — Justice Ginsburg wrote, "[A]t stake in cases challenging abortion restrictions is a woman’s ‘control over her [own] destiny.’"

While the decision of whether and when to have children is the immediate question undergirding the right to reproductive freedom, as Justice Ginsburg signals above, at the core of this right lies even broader concerns: the rights of equality and opportunity. Until the recent Carhart decision, the Court understood that constitutional protections for reproductive freedom were also constitutional protections aimed at ensuring women’s ability to participate fully in the "economic and social life of the Nation." At the core of the right to reproductive freedom is opportunity: the opportunity to obtain a good education, to shape one’s economic circumstances, to participate in the democratic process, to find love, to build families, to decide what makes for a good life, and to have the opportunity to live that life.

The Roberts Court recklessly veered away from these important constitutional principles when it upheld for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court an abortion restriction that failed to include protections for women’s health. This could be a troubling sign of what’s ahead. This November, voters in South Dakota will face a ballot initiative to ban nearly all abortions in that state. If the ban becomes law, the ACLU will join Planned Parenthood Federation of America in bringing a legal challenge to stop this assault on abortion rights. The case could end up before the Supreme Court. The Court will then have the opportunity to reaffirm the right — or severely curtail it and with it women’s equality and opportunity.

We hope that the next president, if given the chance, will restore the Court’s commitment to freedom, equality, and opportunity for all. Our destiny as a nation is what is at stake in this election. Be a Constitution Voter.

(Originally posted on Daily Kos.)

Last Thursday the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released proposed regulations (PDF) that could seriously undermine women’s access to reproductive health services, including birth control and abortion. Now the public has 30 days to let the Bush administration know precisely what we think of these regulations. Click here for our Action Alert, which will allow you to send comments to HHS.

The Bush administration is trying to spin the proposed regulations as a necessary means of protecting health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions. But federal law has long carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients’ access to reproductive health care. It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

What’s really new about these proposed regulations is that they appear to take patients’ health needs out of the equation. They expand the ability of health care workers to refuse to provide complete and accurate information and counseling to women who seek services. Moreover, both the regulations, and Secretary of HHS Michael Leavitt’s public comments about them, leave the door open as to whether institutions and individuals can refuse to provide contraception.

Make no mistake: that lack of clarity is intentional. As the Washington Post reports, "…when pressed about whether the regulation would protect health-care workers who consider birth control pills, Plan B and other forms of contraception to be equivalent to abortion, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt said: ‘This regulation does not seek to resolve any ambiguity in that area.’" Indeed, the Wall Street Journal notes Leavitt’s admission that some medical providers may want to "press the definition."

Not reassuring.

Ditto for Leavitt’s justification for issuing the proposed regulations, which is based on his willful misinterpretation of last November’s statement (PDF) from the ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. ACOG said that doctors should either be prepared to perform "standard reproductive services" or else refer those patients to someone who will. Leavitt claims that ACOG’s statement could potentially strip noncompliant doctors of their board certification, never mind that both ACOG and the executive director of the certifying board have explicitly told him otherwise.

But these regulations aren’t about responding to facts. This administration has, time and again, put its political and ideological concerns above the best interests of the American people.

They are, however, a very serious threat to women’s health and to existing patient protections that ensure that even in the face of religious refusals women can get the health care they need.

Click here to go to our Action Alert, which will allow you to submit comments to HHS. The deadline is September 20 and volume counts, so please act quickly and tell your friends.

“[T]he Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.”

, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent to Gonzales v. Carhart.

“I’m ecstatic. It’s like someone gave me $1 million and told me, Leslee, go shopping. We’re brainstorming, and we’re having fun.”

, Leslee Unruh, one of the architects of last year’s failed attempt to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota, explaining her reaction to the Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Last Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court upheld the first ever federal law banning certain abortion methods. The Court’s decision is a devastating blow to women’s health, reproductive rights, and the ability of all Americans to make private medical decisions.

The decision is the first ever in which the Court has upheld an abortion restriction that lacks protection for women’s health. The decision is thus unprecedented and dangerous. It undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women’s health must remain paramount. It signals the Court’s willingness to defer to politicians, not doctors, when it comes to matters of our health. And it invites states to pass still more restrictions, to further limit our access to abortion and with it our autonomy.

And, strikingly, it is the first decision of the Court since Justice O’Connor resigned. There’s no getting around one core fact: Last week’s decision was a reversal of a 2000 decision , in which the Court struck a similar state ban in part because it lacked a health exception , and the change in result reflects the change in the Court.

The decision has sparked anger and ire , all warranted. A doctor in California writes a satirical letter-to-the editor (see last) referring his case of lupus nephritis to the Court; Ellen Goodman connects politicians’ eagerness to interfere in private medical decisions with Terri Schiavo; and an editorial The New York Times points out the Court’s patronizing tone towards women.

Now it’s time for the decision to spark activism , by those of us who care about our right to decide whether and when to have a child; who want doctors, not politicians, to make medical decisions; and who care about women’s lives and equality. The ACLU stands ready and in firm defense of our rights.