As Louise said so eloquently on Friday, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal ban on certain medically approved abortion procedures, is a devastating blow to those of us who care about both our right to choose whether and when to have children and our right to make private medical decisions without state intervention.

It was an incendiary decision. And in New York it has already lit a fire. A coalition of women’s health advocates, led by the New York Civil Liberties Union, has been at work for months on a proposal for a piece of legislation that would overhaul and dramatically strengthen New York State’s outdated reproductive rights law. Last week, after the decision came down, Governor Eliot Spitzer stood up before a room full of women — women who have had children, women who have had abortions, women who believe it’s within their right to make their medical decisions on their own — and promised to submit that very bill for introduction in the New York State Legislature.

For the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act to become law would be a major victory for women in New York and nationwide. Even as the Supreme Court continues to narrow federal protections for reproductive rights, the new New York law would protect not only the right to end a pregnancy but also the right to bear a child, the right to use or refuse birth control, and the right to keep reproductive decisions private. It would make sure women’s health doesn’t take a back seat to politics. And it would ensure that New York stands as a beacon in an impending storm.

New York was one of the first three states to make abortion legal. It did so in 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade was decided. Now it’s time for New York to take its cue from Carhart, step up again, and lead the ongoing struggle for women’s right to control their reproductive destinies.

Breen reports:

Yesterday’s favorable verdict resonated as a significant step forward for women in policing, women in non-traditional forms of employment and for all women in every walk of life. The jury firmly recognized the discriminatory impact the Suffolk County Police department’s April policy had on pregnant women, awarding at least five thousand dollars in damages to each plaintiff for her suffering. Fortunately for women everywhere, this finding will militate against policies that negatively affect pregnant women. Pregnancy discrimination is seemingly on the rise, as more and more women are filing such claims. The Lochren victory is an important achievement in the ongoing fight for equality between the sexes and reproductive rights.

As interns, clerks, reporters and attorneys rushed into the courtroom yesterday evening to hear the verdict, the plaintiffs and their attorneys prepared themselves for what was to come. The energy in the room reached a silent crescendo as the jury foreman began to render the verdict.

WE WON.

The jury found that the policy itself was discriminatory, and, additionally, that the Department discriminated intentionally against two of the officers. All six officers get damages.

There’s a lot of screaming going on in this office.

Quoth Cassy: “This is a great decision because it sends a message to all police departments that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is illegal and unfair.”

No press yet — we’ll update as the stories hit the wire. For now, just celebration.

Still no verdict. Back in NYC we’re getting calls every thirty seconds from members of the press, who are starting to wonder why they haven’t heard news of a verdict. Believe me, we wish we had some news!…

Newsday’s Jennifer Sinco Kelleher has been a trooper on this case, spending days on end in the courtroom and filing one thoughtful and fair story after another. Her most recent, from yesterday, is here. There’s that great picture of Christine, Sarah, Kelly, Miriam, and Sandi again.

Breen checks in again to report that the jury has requested deposition transcripts for individuals who were mentioned in the course of the trial but who were never in fact deposed. After being informed that the transcripts are not part of the record, they return to their deliberations. The waiting game continues.

Another update from Breen:

It’s 2 p.m. and still no word from the jury. Everyone has stepped outside, explored the cafeteria, and made several trips down the hall and back. Anticipations of a quick decision are beginning to fade as the afternoon wears on. Are the members of the jury working out the fine points of a complex damages award or are they simply trying to determine on which side a preponderance of the evidence falls?

Skimming old newspapers, case documents and well-worn paperbacks, the hopeful plaintiffs and their attorneys wait in the empty courtroom.

Sandi, Sarah, Patricia, Miriam, Kelly, and Christine, the plaintiffs in the Lochren case, are clustered together on the right side of the courtroom with NYCLU and ACLU attorneys Cassy and Namita and Outten & Golden attorneys Linda and Carmelyn. We’re waiting, anxiously, for the verdict.

Across the room, Assistant County Attorney Chris Termini and his associate talk quietly. Their side of the federal courtroom is pretty much deserted. A few members of the press are scattered in the rows, awaiting the jury’s return.

The tension in the room is palpable. Occasional eruptions of edgy laughter rise up over the low hum of excited chatter. Everybody waits.

What will the verdict be? Will the jury come down in favor of the plaintiffs and right the wrongs inflicted by the policy by awarding them compensatory damages? What about the possibility of additional damages? Or …

The slightest noise or movement garners immediate attention. All heads inadvertently swing in the direction of the disturbance in anticipation of the awaited moment — only to be faced with yet another false alarm. After an hour and a half, counsel for the defense interrupts the charged chatter to announce his plan to leave his post in pursuit of a cup of coffee. The plaintiffs and their attorneys almost immediately follow suit, abandoning the tense courtroom for a few minutes respite before the waiting begins in earnest.

The tenor of the courtroom is expectation: everyone seems to be anticipating an early verdict …

Testimony’s over. Former Suffolk Police Chief Joseph L. Montieth and expert witness Chief Vicky Peltzer capped off our case before lunch. Monteith spoke highly of the pre-2001 “light duty” policy and told the jury he’d chaired a SCPD committee designed to explore and develop department policies regarding pregnancy. According to Montieth, the department never experienced a shortage of “light duty” positions for pregnant officers — nor had it received any complaints regarding this the policy while he was Chief.

Montieth’s reaction to the April 2000 policy? He said he’d felt like “the baby was being thrown out with the bath water.”

Chief Vicky Peltzer, President of the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives and an expert on women in policing, testified to the importance (”essential” to any officer, as she put it) of effective bullet proof vests and gun belts. She confirmed that such vests are not available to women in late stages of pregnancy and that gun belts worn with the SC maternity uniform fail of their essential protective purpose.

When the jury returned from lunch, closing arguments began. NYCLU Reproductive Rights Attorney Cassy Stubbs began her final arguments with a concise explanation of the plaintiffs’ two discrimination claims. She told the jury that the SCPD had engaged in discriminatory treatment of pregnant officers when it adopted the 2000 policy, and she explained that the policy had had a discriminatory or disparate impact on pregnant women. Finally, she told the jury that the SCPD had been faced with a choice — to continue the traditional practice of accommodating pregnant officers, or to exclude them from work. The SCPD had made the wrong choice.

The jury is charged. We await a verdict.

Wesleyan Econ Prof. Joyce Jacobson opened the day Thursday by taking the conversation to a quantitative level. Dr. Jacobson used data from the Suffolk County Police Department’s records to show the jury how the light duty policy change affected pregnant officers more harshly than non-pregnant officers. Turns out women use five times as much light duty for pregnancy as other officers used for all other off-the-job injuries and conditions combined.

Once she’d shown that pregnant women were most likely to use light duty, Dr. Joyce proved the other half of the argument – that pregnant women are the least likely to abuse it. She testified that pregnant women only stayed on light duty for an average of six months, while men who used light duty status for off-the job injuries stayed on an average of over two years.

This just in from Breen Sullivan, the legal student fellow working on the Lochren case:

The third day of trial opened with Plaintiff Officer Patricia O’Brien recounting her frustration when faced with the choice of either remaining on active duty without the standard protections of a functional bulletproof vest and an accessible gun-belt, or the cessation of police work entirely when pregnant. Officer O’Brien, who is currently pregnant, modeled her vest for the court in a dramatic demonstration of exactly what areas are left exposed, including her stomach, and vital parts of her chest.

Finally, Officer James Piel, an investigator with the SCPD Internal Affairs department, testified that internal investigations spurred by the pending litigation did in fact reveal substantiated instances of policy violation by SC Officers following the adoption of the policy in question. At least two Officers were found by Piel to have been assigned to a ‘light’ or ‘limited’ position in response to a ‘301′ condition or injury, in direct violation of policy.”