Abortion

Abortion.com Find an Abortion Provider

Call for a provider near you (800) 804-8868

Abortion Care – Abortion Pill – Abortion Medical – Late Term Abortion

UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. (PHOTO BY: EDUCATION IMAGES/UNIVERSAL IMAGES GROUP VIA GETTY IMAGES)

A memo also warned faculty they must “remain neutral” in speaking about abortion at all.

Employees at the University of Idaho are being warned that they could be fired if they refer students for abortions or even offer them birth control, according to a new memo issued in the wake of Idaho’s new near-total abortion ban. 

They’re also being warned to “remain neutral” in speaking about abortion at all. “Academic freedom is not a defense to violation of law,” the memo reads.

The memo, issued Friday and obtained by Idaho Press, was drafted by the University of Idaho’s Office of General Counsel and includes a laundry list of recommendations for university employees meant to keep them safe from the Idaho’s anti-abortion statutes. The state’s near-total ban, which took effect in late August, outlaws abortions except in cases where a pregnant person’s life is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest (as long as it was reported to law enforcement). 

People who violate Idaho’s anti-abortion laws could be found guilty of a felony. They could also be fired and blocked from any future employment with the state, according to the memo.

“In this new and evolving legal landscape, how these laws will be enforced remains unclear,” the memo reads. “Accordingly, the university and its employees should be aware of the potential risks and penalties associated with conduct that may be perceived to violate the laws.”

Under the memo, university employees also cannot “counsel in favor of abortion,” form contracts with abortion providers, or dispense emergency contraception like Plan B.

Because Idaho law also now forbids people from helping the “prevention of conception,” a decidedly vague term, the University of Idaho is interpreting it to also refer to birth control. 

“Since violation is considered a felony, we are advising a conservative approach here, that the university not provide standard birth control itself,” the memo reads.

The memo does specify that health care workers at student health locations can still offer “counseling on birth control, as well as providing the means for birth control.” University employees may also still “provide condoms for the purpose of helping prevent the spread of STDs and not for purposes of birth control.”

The memo also advises employees to be careful in classroom discussions. If employees are thought to be promoting abortion in those discussions, they could find themselves in legal trouble.

“Faculty or others in charge of classroom topics and discussion must themselves remain neutral on the topic and cannot conduct or engage in discussions in violation of these prohibitions without risking prosecution,” the memo reads.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkwkx/university-of-idaho-abortion-birth-control

OHIO’S ABORTION BAN HAS ALREADY LEFT A TRAIL OF MISERY IN ITS WAKE. (GETTY)

VICE News obtained affidavits from an Ohio lawsuit detailing the trail of misery left by a state abortion ban.

Two children recently fled Ohio to get abortions after being raped, according to affidavits filed in a lawsuit aimed at halting Ohio’s six-week abortion ban.

Abortion providers in Ohio sued the state earlier this month over its six-week abortion ban, which took effect following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade earlier this summer. Last week, a local court agreed to temporarily pause Ohio’s six-week abortion ban. But according to the affidavits, obtained by VICE News and which their signers swore to under oath, Ohio’s abortion ban has already left a trail of misery in its wake. 

In addition to the two raped children, two women, including a 25-year-old mother, couldn’t get treatment for their cancer while pregnant, according to affidavits. At least three threatened to die of suicide if they couldn’t get abortions. Another said she would drink bleach if she couldn’t end her pregnancy.

Two women had pregnancies with fetal abnormalities so serious that no baby could possibly survive. 

Three patients’ pregnancies left them vomiting so much it was essentially impossible for them to live their lives. One was a high-school senior who couldn’t attend class because she was throwing up so much, an OB-GYN said in one affidavit. She ended up in the hospital on suicide watch.

“What do you want me to do…throw myself down the steps?” one patient asked an abortion clinic staffer, an OB-GYN said in an affidavit. 

“Many patients tell me that they feel they have no choice but to go through with the pregnancy,” Allegra Pierce, an abortion clinic medical assistant, said in an affidavit. “They worry they may lose their jobs, will seriously struggle to support their families or the children they already have if they have another child, or will suffer harm to their physical or mental health if they have to remain pregnant, but do not see another option.”  

Most patients have told Pierce that they can’t manage all the obstacles to crossing state lines for an abortion, according to Pierce’s affidavit. They have to juggle the cost of travel, child care, getting time off work, and finding a clinic that can do the procedure soon. That’s just too much, the patients say.

The two raped children ultimately got abortions in Michigan and Indiana, per the affidavits. The child who traveled to Michigan had to wait more than three weeks for an abortion appointment, Dr. Adarsh Krishen, Planned Parenthood Greater Ohio’s chief medical officer, said in an affidavit. 

“In each step of this process she felt the complete denial of bodily autonomy and safety, something that all people, especially children, should unequivocally have at all times,” Krishen said.

In the other case, where a 16-year-old sexually assaulted by a family member, law enforcement had to drive to Indianapolis to pick up tissue in order to test it for the child’s sexual assault case, Aeran Trick, a manager at a Dayton abortion clinic, said in an affidavit.

“I am concerned that Ohio’s ban and the need to travel increasingly far distances to obtain abortion care not only causes unimaginable harm to these young victims, but could also hamper law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute these cases in the future,” Trick said.

The raped minors described in the affidavits aren’t the only ones who allegedly fled Ohio for abortions. Days after Roe’s overturning, a raped 10-year-old Ohioan made national headlines when she had to travel to Indiana to end her pregnancy. 

One of the patients who couldn’t stop vomiting was a 16-year-old who lost 20 pounds, Trick said. The girl’s mother took her to Indianapolis for an abortion, but had to rent a car because of car problems. They had to make multiple trips to the abortion clinic there, thanks to Indiana abortion restrictions. 

Another patient was vomiting so much that, Trick said, she had to lie on the clinic floor and throw up into a bucket. That woman worried about losing her job as a store manager because she had to take off time to try to get an abortion, and because of what Trick called “repeated absences due to her being hospitalized for her condition.” 

The woman ultimately got an abortion in Indianapolis, but she had to take her four kids and mother along with her, Trick said.

Trick was also among the staffers who met a cancer patient who wanted an abortion, according to Trick. The woman, a 37-year-old with stage three melanoma, couldn’t get treatment while pregnant.

“Upon learning that she would need to travel out of state to have her abortion, the patient broke down and cried inconsolably despite the attempts of multiple staff members, including myself, to comfort her,” Trick said.

In another affidavit, Dr. David Burkons detailed how one woman found out she was just a few days too late to have an abortion in Ohio. When the woman told her boyfriend, who was waiting outside the clinic, “he then kicked her out of the car and drove away, leaving the woman hysterical because she already had two children and didn’t know what to do,” Burkons said.

Two women had ectopic pregnancies, a life-threatening condition that renders a pregnancy impossible to continue, yet said doctors at emergency rooms were too afraid of the ban to treat them, Burkons said. One woman ended up having her fallopian tube rupture. 

The Ohio abortion ban doesn’t even apply to ectopic pregnancies but, Burkons said, “I am concerned that the law’s stiff criminal penalties are deterring some physicians from providing even legal care that is medically necessary.” 

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3pna7/ohio-abortion-ban-lawsuit-affidavits

SENATOR MARCO RUBIO SPEAKS AT A RALLY WITH FLORIDA GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS IN HIALEAH, FLORIDA, ON AUG. 23, 2022. (EVA MARIE UZCATEGUI / BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES)

VICE News also obtained video of the senator saying that abortion ban exceptions for health reasons are “a massive loophole.”

In a virtual town hall Monday, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio seemed to compare abortion to vehicular manslaughter.

“In most states in this country, if a drunk driver runs a red light and kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter,” Rubio told Florida attorney John Stemberger, leader of the Florida Family Policy Council, a Christian advocacy group. “One for the child and one for the mother. So we are already, in other areas of the law, recognize that that is a human life worthy of protection of our laws.”

In his comments, captured on video obtained by VICE News, Rubio also said that abortion ban exceptions meant to protect the health of pregnant people are “a massive loophole.”

“They always say, ‘with the exception of life or health of the mother,’ and that ‘or health’ sounds good, but it’s very nuanced. It’s not throwaway line,” he said. “What it means is, some doctor can come forward and say, ‘Well, I know it’s eight-a-half months, I know that she’s due next week, but I think this would be bad for her mental health, I think it would be bad for her spiritual health, for her psychological, if she went ahead.’ I mean, it’s a massive loophole.”

Rubio has previously said that he personally supports abortion restrictions that don’t have exceptions for rape and incest, although he’s willing to support laws that have such exceptions as long as they decrease abortions. But his remarks represent a new, further-right frontier in the senator’s opposition to abortion—especially following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, when abortion bans are no longer a hypothetical possibility but a real restriction on millions of people’s ability to end their pregnancies.

They also come as many Republicans running for election, like Rubio, are trying to publicly downplay their position on abortion in the wake of the resounding defeat of an anti-abortion constitutional amendment in Kansas.

As of 2018, at least 38 states had fetal homicide lawsUnder Georgia’s post-Roe abortion ban, for example, fetuses can now even be claimed as tax dependents. 

But granting fetuses full rights and protections—a goal of the so-called “fetal personhood” movement that Rubio appears to evoke in his remarks—could also, in some cases, mean that those rights would compete with or potentially even outstrip those of pregnant people.

In Alabama, the first state in the country to adopt a “fetal personhood clause” in its constitution, a woman beat up her coworker, who shot her and ended her pregnancy. The woman was then indicted for manslaughter. (The case was ultimately dropped.) Compared to every other state, more women have now been arrested in Alabama for using drugs during pregnancy, according to reporting by the Marshall Project, the Frontier, and AL.com.

“This is not just crazy theorizing,” Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told VICE News in 2018 of the fight over fetal personhood. “These arguments are already being made and used to control not just abortion but the lives and bodies of pregnant women now.”

In his remarks regarding loopholes, Rubio seemed to be referring to Democrats and abortion rights supporters writ large. But modern-day abortion bans do not “always” allow abortions to preserve the health of pregnant people. Instead, bans in states like Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota say the procedure can be performed to save a “life.” Doctors have told VICE News that this kind of language blocks them from helping patients who are endangered but not yet at death’s door.

“We’re waiting for patients to get sick, or get sicker, to be sick enough as to be able to intervene,” Dr. Tani Malhotra, a maternal fetal medicine specialist in Ohio, told VICE News this summer.

Additionally, while Rubio claims that doctors may use a “health” exception to refer to a patient’s mental health, that’s not possible in many states. Abortion bans in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia explicitly say that medical professionals can only weigh threats to a patient’s physical health as justification for an abortion, or that mental health concerns can’t be considered. Rubio’s home state, Florida, has similar language in its 15-week abortion ban. It says the procedure can be permitted “to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.” 

By contrast, before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, pregnant people could sometimes get legal abortions if they convinced doctors that, without the procedure, they would die of suicide. That is no longer possible in many states.

In response to a detailed list of questions regarding Rubio’s comments, a spokesperson for his office sent VICE News a press release where Rubio listed questions he sent reporters asking them if they’d asked federally elected Democrats “real questions about abortion.” Those questions include what restrictions they support on abortion, when a politician considers a fetus viable, and whether abortion providers can show a “‘good-faith’ medical judgment” about when continuing a pregnancy after viability may risk someone’s “life or health.” 

Most reporters didn’t reply to Rubio’s questionnaire, according to the senator, who accused them of letting Democrats “get away with murder, literally.”

When VICE News repeated a request for comment on Rubio’s Monday remarks, a spokesperson told VICE News over email, “We will stand by his comments. Out of curiosity, have you ever asked a federally elected Democrat any of the below questions?”

Determining when a fetus becomes viable is not a political matter, but a scientific one. Although it’s a moving benchmark, given the complex reality of pregnancy, viability is generally dated to around 24 weeks of pregnancy. In 2019, less than 1 percent of all abortions were performed after 21 weeks of gestation, according to the most recent data available from the CDC. In contrast, almost 80 percent of all abortions occurred at less than 9 weeks of gestation.

There’s relatively little data available on who and why people undergo third-trimester abortions, given how rare they are. But when a University of California, San Francisco researcher interviewed 28 women about their third-trimester abortions, she found that they tended to fall into two camps: either they learned new information about their pregnancies—such as a fetal abnormality, which can sometimes only be discovered later on in pregnancy—or were essentially blocked from getting an abortion earlier.

2018 Congressional Service Research report concluded that it is deeply difficult to characterize when people get abortions later in pregnancy over threats to their life. But it has happened: In 2016, Jezebel published the account of a woman who got an abortion at 32 weeks after she discovered that her fetus had a fatal abnormality and that, if she gave birth naturally, she could die. 

The group hosting the town hall with Rubio, the Florida Family Policy Council, describes itself as “pro-life, pro-family” organization that champions the idea that “institutions of natural marriage and the family as the foundation of civilization.” It is also a “state-based policy council” affiliated with theFamily Policy Alliance, Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council—organizations that have been at the forefront of promoting the national conservative agenda against abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/epza3k/marco-rubio-appears-to-have-compared-abortion-to-vehicular-manslaughter

Rep. Danny McCormick, R-Oil City, speaks on his bill, HB813, concerning abortion during legislative session, Thursday, May 12, 2022, in the House Chambers of the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge, La. (Hillary Scheinuk/The Advocate via AP)

A businessman turned state representative from rural Oil City, Louisiana, and a Baptist pastor banded together earlier this year on a radical mission.

They were adamant that a woman who receives an abortion should receive the same criminal consequences as one who drowns her baby.

Under a bill they promoted, pregnant people could face murder charges even if they were raped or doctors determined the procedure was needed to save their own life. Doctors who attempted to help patients conceive through in-vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment used by millions of Americans, could also be locked up for destroying embryos, and certain contraception such as Plan B would be banned.

“The taking of a life is murder, and it is illegal,” state Rep. Danny McCormick told a committee of state lawmakers who considered the bill in May, right after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked.

“No compromises, no more waiting,” Brian Gunter, the pastor who suggested McCormick be the one to introduce the legislation, told the committee.

Louisiana State Rep. Danny McCormick, pastor Brian Gunter and attorney Bradley Pierce (right to left) urged state lawmakers to move their bill, HB 813, out of committee earlier this year.

Louisiana State Rep. Danny McCormick, pastor Brian Gunter and attorney Bradley Pierce (right to left) urged state lawmakers to move their bill, HB 813, out of committee earlier this year.

Only four people spoke against the bill during the committee meeting— all women. They pleaded with the lawmakers to grasp the gravity of the proposed restrictions, which went farther than any state abortion law currently on the books, and warned of unintended consequences.

“We need to take a deep breath,” said Melissa Flournoy, a former state representative who runs the progressive advocacy group 10,000 Women Louisiana. She said the bill would only punish women and that there wasn’t enough responsibility being placed on men.

But in the end, only one man and one woman, an Independent and a Democrat, voted against it in committee. Seven men on the committee, all Republicans, voted in favor of the bill, moving it one step closer to becoming law.

Men at the helm

A faction of self-proclaimed “abolitionists” are seeking to make abortion laws more restrictive and the consequences of having the procedure more punitive than ever before.

Emboldened by the overturning of Roe v. Wade, they say they will not be satisfied until fetuses are given the same protections as all US citizens — meaning that if abortion is illegal, then criminal statutes should be applied accordingly. While major national anti-abortion groups say they do not support criminalizing women, the idea is gaining traction with certain conservative lawmakers. And the activists and politicians leading the charge are nearly always men, CNN found.

This year, three male lawmakers from Indiana attempted to wipe out existing abortion regulations and change the state’s criminal statutes to apply at the time of fertilization. In Texas, five male lawmakers authored a bill last year that would have made getting an abortion punishable by the death penalty if it had gone into law. A state representative in Arizona introduced legislation that included homicide charges — saying in a Facebook video that anyone who undergoes an abortion deserves to “spend some time” in the Arizona “penal system.” And a male Kansas lawmaker proposed a bill that would amend the state’s constitution to allow abortion laws to pass without an exception for the life of the mother.

While most in the anti-abortion movement believe that human life begins at conception, “abolitionists” are particularly uncompromising in how they act on their beliefs — comparing abortion to the Holocaust and using inflammatory terms such as “slaughter” and “murder” to describe a medical procedure that most Americans believe should be legal in all or most cases.

Bradley Pierce, the attorney who helped draft the Louisiana bill, said his organization has been involved with many of the “abolition” bills that have been introduced in more than a dozen states. All of this proposed legislation would make it possible for women seeking abortions to face criminal charges.

An overwhelming majority of Americans said in a Pew Research Center poll they don’t believe men should have a greater say on abortion policy, but that is what is happening. Experts told CNN that the male dominance fits within the anti-abortion movement’s current framing as being focused on “fetal personhood” and “fetal rights” as opposed to maternal rights.

Eric Swank, an Arizona State University professor who has studied gender differences in anti-abortion activists, said his research found that while men aren’t necessarily more likely to consider themselves to be “pro-life” than women, they “are more willing to take the adamant stance of no abortion under any conditions.”

The most restrictive bills, which don’t include explicit “life of the mother” exceptions and would charge those who receive abortions with homicide, have failed to make it to the full vote needed for passage. But others that prohibit abortions even in cases of rape and incest have taken hold in around a dozen states, including Missouri, Alabama and Tennessee, according to Guttmacher Institute.

Those laws, CNN found, were also overwhelmingly passed into law by male legislators. While female Republicans almost always voted in favor of the legislation, gender imbalances within state legislatures, as well as the fact that female lawmakers were more likely to be Democrats, fueled the voting gap. And male Democratic lawmakers were far more likely than female Democrats to cross the aisle to vote in favor of the abortion bans, according to CNN’s analysis.

The Texas Heartbeat Act, for example, outlawed nearly all abortions in the state when it criminalized the procedure as soon as a heartbeat could be detected — as early as six weeks of pregnancy. While men made up nearly three quarters of the 177 lawmakers who voted, nearly 90% of those who voted in favor of the bill were men.

Encouraging ‘sacrificial behavior’

Scott Herndon, a bearded Idaho man and father of eight, once believed abortion was an issue that should be discussed “between a woman and her physician.”

He remembers watching the classic 80s movie, “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” and being relatively ambivalent about the fact that one of the characters received an abortion. He didn’t become a Christian until 1996, the same year he drove his pregnant girlfriend along the streets of San Francisco on his motorcycle. The pregnancy was unexpected, but that life development, along with a newfound religious practice, led Herndon to spend a lot of thinking about “the miraculous nature of life.” Over the years he began to feel compelled to get involved with the anti-abortion movement.

His daughter is now 25, and he and his wife went on to have seven more children. A longtime member of the Idaho Republicans, he told CNN he decided to run for state Senate this year with a mission of fighting government encroachment. Herndon, who touts his competitive shooting experience in high school and college, is a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms and strongly opposes vaccine mandates. He describes himself as a “true family-values conservative,” noting that his sons help him with his home-building business while his five daughters live on the family farm, milking cows, and raising chickens and pigs.

One of his longterm goals if elected, he said, is to abolish abortion in the state.

“Success depends on changing hearts and minds,” he said. “I liken the effort to Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights movement for desegregation and equal treatment of African Americans.”

This comparison is one that abortion rights activists take serious issue with. “Let’s be clear: appropriating the word ‘abolition’ is particularly contemptuous,” a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a statement to CNN. “That word is a symbol of freedom and this group wants to put people behind bars for exercising their right to bodily autonomy.”

Abortion rights demonstrators gathered outside the US Supreme Court after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Abortion rights demonstrators gathered outside the US Supreme Court after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Herndon, however, says women should embrace their instinctual “sacrificial behavior.”

“If a mother is in a life raft with a child and there’s only enough food and water to save one, I’m guessing most mothers would not throw their child overboard and drown them,” he said in an interview with CNN when asked about medical circumstances where a doctor may deem an abortion necessary to save a woman’s life, such as a cancer diagnosis that requires aggressive treatment.

As part of their efforts to abolish abortion, which is generally defined as the termination of a pregnancy, Herndon and others in the anti-abortion movement are attempting to redefine the term to the “intentional killing” of a fetus.

That way, they claim, the lives of mothers could still be saved as long as doctors make an equal attempt to save the fetus.

Gunter, meanwhile, said he disagrees with the medical establishment and does not believe abortion is ever medically necessary.

Doctors point to a variety of medical situations where an abortion may be needed to protect a pregnant person's life.

Doctors point to a variety of medical situations where an abortion may be needed to protect a pregnant person’s life.

Medical and legal experts told CNN this is a dangerous and inaccurate claim, saying there are plenty of situations that could result in women dying or being put through unnecessary bodily harm if explicit exceptions for the health and life of the mother are not included in the laws regulating abortion.

Louise King, a gynecologic surgeon and professor at Harvard Medical School, said the claims are “disingenuous at best and intentional dissemination of misinformation at worst” and questioned why they “can’t simply trust medical professionals to do their job.”

“Most of these ‘arguments’ are attempts to impose a minority religious view on the majority of our citizens,” she said. “This is not a matter of belief or opinion. This is a highly inappropriate way to use our legislative system.”

An immediate abortion may be needed if a pregnant person’s water breaks before 20 weeks, King said, or when patients have pre-existing conditions that could lead to heart or liver failure or they need aggressive treatment for a disease like cancer that would severely harm — if not destroy — the fetus. An “equal attempt to save the fetus” would require putting the life of the pregnant person at risk,” she said, adding that it is also not the well established standard of care.

Doctors also note that abortion bans take away a patient’s ability to make decisions about their own health and pregnancy, sometimes forcing them to endure pregnancies and deliveries of fetuses that will not survive.

Stories like this are already making headlines as laws become increasingly restrictive. In some cases, doctors are already afraid to perform abortions in cases where a mother’s health is at risk, even with so called “life of the mother” exceptions in place. In Texas, one woman learned that her baby had heart, lung, brain, kidney and genetic defects and would either be stillborn or die within minutes of birth. At the same time, doctors warned her that carrying the baby to term threatened her own life, but she says she was still refused an abortion by doctors who said it could run afoul of the state’s strict six-week abortion ban. She ultimately drove 10 hours to a New Mexico abortion clinic to undergo the procedure. “I’m still so angry and hurt about it that I can hardly see straight,” she wrote on Facebook the next day.

Another Texas woman spoke out about being forced to carry her dead fetus for weeks after suffering a miscarriage. In Louisiana, a woman carrying a fetus without a skull was reportedly not allowed to get an abortion, while another was reportedly denied an abortion and instead forced into hours of labor when her water broke at 16 weeks, long before the fetus was viable.

Idaho State Senate candidate Scott Herndon supports a total abortion ban in the state.

Idaho State Senate candidate Scott Herndon supports a total abortion ban in the state.

Herndon agreed that the health of the pregnant woman should be considered, but he worries that the medical community automatically prioritizes the mother’s life and does not treat the fetus as a person until birth, saying this needs to change. And he said that while locking up women is not his objective, it only makes sense for homicide charges to apply to a woman who chooses to undergo an abortion if fetuses are given equal protections under the law.

As chair of his county’s Republican Party, he attended the Idaho Republican convention in July and proposed an official change to the party platform in support of an amendment to the state constitution that would “strengthen” the rights of fetuses.

After it easily passed the vote, a fellow Republican delegate took the floor with a proposal that was not met with the same support. She wanted to make sure an exception was included in the party platform for abortions needed for a woman’s physical and mental health, Herndon recounted.

A heated debate ensued, with Herndon describing the proposal as not carefully crafted and unnecessary. The proposal was ultimately rejected by a margin of nearly 3 to 1, according to news reports. The Idaho Republican Party did not respond to requests for comment.

No exceptions

Back in 2019, a bill that would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape and incest was placed in front of Alabama’s legislature — a move so extreme that a number of high-profile Republicans initially said it went too far.

When the bill reached the state Senate, 25 male legislators voted on party lines to enact it, and the state’s female governor signed it into law.

A federal judge blocked it from taking effect, but it had an immediate domino effect as other states followed suit. Most of the laws, including near-total abortion bans known as “trigger” laws and six-week “heartbeat” bills, weren’t able to take effect at the time either, but they are being implemented across the country now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned.

This wave of unprecedented restrictions shows the power of the anti-abortion movement and how the Republican Party has shifted to appeal to a small but fervent group of voters, experts said.

“The idea that a fully human life with full moral worth begins at conception is not an extreme view in the pro-life movement,” said Ziad Munson, a sociology professor at Lehigh University who has researched the movements on both sides of the abortion debate. “The real issue is the degree of power the movement has over the Republican Party in the political arena, where such viewpoints have — at least until recently — been outside the mainstream.”

Anti-abortion protesters gathered at the Indiana State Capitol this summer.

Anti-abortion protesters gathered at the Indiana State Capitol this summer.

And in recent years, a particular brand of Republican candidate has become more prominent — one that touts the “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, doesn’t trust science and consider themselves to be Christian Nationalists, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis.

“Even a more moderate candidate may feel that they have to toe the line in what the anti-abortion movement is saying, and what (the movement) wants is changing,” said Ziegler, who has studied the anti-abortion movement’s influence on US politics. “So who you are catering to if you’re the Republican Party is changing.”

As a result, she said, what would have previously been considered a disqualifying stance on abortion for most voters is one of the issues now being used by a growing number of Republican candidates for state and federal office in the hopes of securing their party’s nomination.

During the primary season earlier this year, two of the leading Republican candidates for governor of Pennsylvania said in a debate that they support banning abortion under any circumstances, including if the mother’s life is at risk. “I don’t give way to exceptions,” said Doug Mastriano, who will be on the ticket in November to succeed incumbent Democratic governor Tom Wolf, who has vetoed a number of abortion bans passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature.

Men running for a number of statewide offices in Georgia have also vocalized their support of total abortion bans. “There’s no exception in my mind,” former football star Herschel Walker, a Republican who is running for the US Senate, told reporters.

Mastriano and Walker have not expressed support for prosecuting women who have abortions. They did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment.

While an overwhelming majority of Americans support legalized abortion when a woman’s life or health is at risk, Ziegler said the disappearing “life of the mother” exception stems from a deep distrust of both women, science and the medical establishment. The new focus on punishing women for undergoing abortions — as seen in several bills recently proposed — is also only likely to intensify, she said. As abortion providers close up shop in states with bans, it is going to become increasingly difficult to charge doctors if women travel to other states for the procedure.

“That’s going to make it more appealing to punish women,” Ziegler said.

‘Abolitionist, not pro-life’

For pastor Gunter in Lousiana, the “pro-life establishment” is not taking a hard enough stand against abortion.

He told CNN he doesn’t think someone can be truly “pro-life” while also believing that abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances. He said he will support nothing short of an all-out abortion ban with homicide charges and that unlike some of his peers, he refuses to sacrifice his principles for political reasons.

Gunter, who “grew up in church in diapers” and is now in his 30s, said in a recent speech that he once believed that opposing abortion simply meant voting for “pro-life” candidates. But when a seminary professor invited him and other men to spread the gospel outside an abortion clinic in 2008, he said everything changed.

Pastor Brian Gunter said he approached Rep. Danny McCormick about the Louisiana bill that included homicide charges for women who receive abortions.

Pastor Brian Gunter said he approached Rep. Danny McCormick about the Louisiana bill that included homicide charges for women who receive abortions.

That day, he said he watched 15 women go inside the clinic and “murder their children.” One of them, Gunter said, couldn’t have been older than 13 and he believed she was being forced to undergo the procedure by her mother.

“She’s a child, and her mother pulled her into that clinic,” said Gunter. “That day changed my life. I went home, and I was newly married… (my wife) was pregnant with our first child. I’d been seeing ultrasound pictures of my son and I thought to myself ‘My God, someone killed a child just like my son, same age as my son, looks like my son. How can they do that?”

After that, he says he began confronting women as they entered abortion clinics every week. And in an attempt to create more sweeping change, he decided to get involved politically. He said he approached Rep. McCormick, who did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment, earlier this year about the Louisiana bill that ended up making waves across the country. It even sparked outrage from the largest anti-abortion group in the state — one that Gunter said he had worked for but recently parted ways with because he felt it wasn’t doing enough to outlaw abortion.

Gunter’s impassioned plea at the committee hearing in May was met with applause, and the vote in favor of moving the bill to the full House ultimately came down to a group of state lawmakers that included a former law enforcement officer, a criminal defense and personal injury attorney and an entrepreneur who makes a living designing “man caves” and selling game room furniture.

Anti-abortion "abolitionists" gathered at the Louisiana State Capitol in support of a bill that would charge pregnant people who receive abortions with murder.

Anti-abortion “abolitionists” gathered at the Louisiana State Capitol in support of a bill that would charge pregnant people who receive abortions with murder.

Lawmakers then gathered on the House floor to debate the bill while dozens of supporters gathered outside the chambers in what resembled a church service, reciting Bible passages and swaying together while singing hymns such as “Amazing Grace.” Jeff Durbin, an Arizona-based pastor and head of a Christian production company Apologia Studios, which has more than 300,000 subscribers on YouTube, emceed and live-streamed the event. Durbin, who once played Michelangelo and Donatello in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise and became fervently religious after overdosing on ecstasy, is now “unapologetically seeking to criminalize and eliminate all forms of abortion without exception.” He did not respond to requests for comment.

He and five other men addressed the crowd at the state capitol, citing proverbs and describing women who get abortions as murderers.

“We have… a righteous bill that punishes those who choose to murder their children,” T. Russell Hunter, the founder of anti-abortion group Free the States, yelled into the microphone, saying that any truly “pro-life” law should hold pregnant women accountable for their decisions — not just the medical providers. “Abortionists do not wake up and go out into the culture looking for children to kill; mothers bring their babies to them to be murdered. They are guilty…they have murdered their children under the color of law and the Lord God hates it.”

Hunter’s group describes itself as “abolitionist, not pro-life” — echoing Gunter’s argument that many in the movement are compromising on their values. “While many who call themselves pro-life agree with us that abortion is murder,” Free the States writes on its website, “abortion has not been opposed by the pro-life political establishment in a manner consistent with its being murder.” Hunter told CNN this movement is not “about wanting to punish women or something silly like that,” and that anyone involved in the decision to terminate a pregnancy should face criminal charges — including fathers.

“Pray for the legislators here,” Durbin, who also runs End Abortion Now, said at the capitol rally.

But this time, the prayers went unfulfilled.

Inside the House chamber, one of seven men to initially vote in favor of the proposed legislation, Rep. Alan Seabaugh, a Republican who describes himself as “pro-life,” apologized for his vote. He said he believed the bill was unconstitutional, “makes criminals out of women.” Other Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion advocates in the state also came out hard against the bill, saying it went too far — including a state representative who said her grandson wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for in vitro fertilization (IVF).

The bill never went to a full vote.

It was the first time such an extreme anti-abortion measure made it out of any state committee, however, and the vocal opposition has not deterred Gunter. He plans to work with McCormick, the Louisiana lawmaker, to introduce a similar bill next year.

Momentum, he told CNN, is only building in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/20/politics/abortion-bans-murder-charges-invs/index.html

U.S. MARINE CORPS PHOTO.

The Pentagon’s favorite think tank found that lack of access to abortion will deepen the U.S. mililtary’s recruiting crisis.

The American military is facing a recruiting crisis and the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision that overturned federal protection for abortion will make it worse, according to a new study from the RAND Corporation. RAND is a think tank founded in 1948 that typically focuses on U.S. military readiness and nuclear issues. In the paper, “How the Dobbs Decision Could Affect U.S. National Security” the think tank outlined all the ways that the recent Supreme Court decision will affect female service members. It paints a grim picture.

According to the study, “40 percent of active-duty service women in the continental U.S. will have no or severely restricted access to abortion services where they are stationed.” And the problem goes beyond soldiers. Military bases are supported by millions of civilian staff members, many of them women. “Nearly 43 percent of civilian women employed by DoD will have no access to abortion or will have their access severely curtailed in their home states.”

Women make up 18 percent of the stateside active-duty military and the Pentagon is actively trying to recruit more of them. The U.S. military is facing a historic recruitment crisis. Obesity, drug use, and criminal records take many candidates off the table. In testimony before Congress in May, Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville said that only 23 percent of Americans aged 17-24 met the Pentagon’s strict qualifications. A DoD survey found that only 9 percent of eligible candidates were interested in military service.

Abortion restrictions are passing in states with large military bases like Texas and Oklahoma. More than 100 military bases are in states with total abortion mans. “Service women have little or no say about where they are stationed. By joining or remaining in service, women are agreeing to live under whatever state restrictions might be imposed,” the study said. “Some might opt out of military service under this new reality.”

It’s already hard to be a woman in the U.S. military. The culture is male dominated and sexual assault is an epidemic. The Pentagon has acknowledged this is all a problem. “We have concerns that some service members may choose to leave the military altogether because they may be stationed in states with restrictive reproductive health laws,” the Pentagon’s chief of personnel and readiness, Gil Cisneros, said in a prepared statement after the Dobbs decision. “This leads us to our concerns about recruitment.”

In an attempt to get ahead of the issue, both the Air Force and the Army issued statements saying it would allow serivcemembers to seek abortions without making formal requests for time off or talking to their commanders. It’s a small comfort in an increasingly drought system, though, as the RAND study made clear.

Women servicemembers living in states with total abortion bans would still face an uphill battle to seek treatment. “First, they could request and take leave to travel to get an abortion in a state where it is legal,” the study said. “Second, they could have the procedure in a state where abortion is illegal, which could result in significant risks to their physical health and put them in legal jeopardy. Third, they could seek a medication abortion in a state with a full or partial ban and risk judicial punishment.”

The women who can’t get abortions will carry their children to term in a male-dominated profession that stimgatizes pregnancy. There’s also the associated cost with medical leave, hospital visits, and childcare. The DoD, which already spends $1.2 billion annually on childcare, would foot the bill for a lot of it. “Ultimately, the most important effect might be a decrease in force readiness and our national security,” the study said.

Abortion and the military was already a delicate subject for the Pentagon. The Hyde amendment made it impossible for soldiers and civilian staff on bases to use military doctors for abortion, with exceptions for live saving treatment, sexual assault, and incest. After the Dobbs decision in June, the Pentagon issued a memorandum meant to assuage fears.

“The Supreme Court’s decision does not prohibit the Department from continuing to perform covered abortions consistent with federal law,” the memo said. “There will be interruption to this care. Health care providers will continue to follow existing departmental policy, and then leadership of military medical treatment facilities will implement measures to ensure continued access to care.”

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d353d/restricted-access-to-abortion-is-a-threat-to-national-security-study-finds

Being six weeks pregnant looks different for everyone—and some people may not even know they’re pregnant at that point. But thanks to Georgia’s six-week abortion ban, many pregnant people in the state won’t know to seek care until it’s illegal to do so. Sidney Chansamone/For Rewire News Group

By passing a six-week abortion ban, Georgia lawmakers are making sure that people like me will be contained to a life as an unwilling parent.

If I were pregnant today, the likelihood that I would seek an abortion is high.

I am 20 years old; a junior at the University of Georgia. I have been working tirelessly since I was 13 years old to ensure that my education is a solid base upon which I can build a successful career and a comfortable life for myself and for the children I hope to have one day further into adulthood. But I carry around so much anxiety in my day-to-day life that no matter how hard I work at school, my job, or in my relationships, I will still not be successful.

Georgia lawmakers are fighting to make sure that people like me will be contained to a life as an unwilling parent or bound to the guilt of putting a child into the misery that meets most children in the foster-care system.

Regardless of how pregnancy occurs, be it through a healthy sexual partnership with or without birth control, a one-night stand or in a situation of sexual violence or assault that far too many people are faced with each day, abortion should be a legal, accessible option.

In this post-Roe reality, the fate of abortion access is left to state legislatures. In Georgia, this means that fewer people have access to legal abortion.

As a person with the capacity for pregnancy living in Georgia, the weeks and months following after the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision overturning Roe v. Wade have been emotional. Fear, anger, betrayal, confusion, hurt, and resignation have been in the mix, but no singular emotion can contain how I have felt. These emotions are isolating, but I know I’m not alone.

photo of protesters at abortion rally in Georgia
Sidney Chansamone/For Rewire News Group

This betrayal by our government and Georgia lawmakers began to sting when Politico in May leaked the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization indicating the Court would overturn Roe. This stinging has grown continuously since, peaking when the federal appeals court signed Georgia’s 2019 six-week abortion ban into immediate effect less than a month after Roe was overturned. Now, abortion in Georgia is banned at six weeks, a period of time so short that many people do not even know that they are pregnant.

Overturning Roe was not meant to impact people like me. I am a white, cisgender, upper-middle-class woman from a Virginian family who supports and defends my right to choose whether or not to seek abortion care if I become pregnant.

The Supreme Court decision was intended to and will disproportionately impact those who are from historically disenfranchised communities. Communities of color, LGBTQ communities, people who don’t have access to the funds, time off of work, childcare, transportation, and any other resources that are needed to receive abortion care are the ones who are being targeted by this deplorable legislation.

The emotional exhaustion that has pervaded daily post-Roe is minuscule compared to the collective impact this decision has had, is having, and will continue to have for the foreseeable future on all people who may seek reproductive or abortion care for any reason.

According to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, Black women are impacted by abortion bans at significantly higher rates than in other communities. Black women in Georgia are three times more likely to die from birth and pregnancy complications in a state with the second-highest maternal mortality rate in the country.

Any perceived financial benefit of a fetus gaining “personhood” will not offset the psychological and monetary costs of being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. One in five Black women of working age in Georgia lives in poverty, according to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. They cannot afford to have the children that they are now forced to carry to term.

Immediately after the June 24 decision, I realized the necessity for me to use this immense privilege to help my local community. In my work as a student journalist on staff at The Red & Black at the University of Georgia, I spent countless hours compiling resources, reaching out to local reproductive justice organizations, speaking to people at protests, and stepping away from my personal feelings about the decision to accurately report the response.

Many other Georgians felt a similar need to spring into action and at least try to do something to make their voices be heard. I spoke with hundreds of people, from 14-year-old Kylee Kasha, who held a sign reading, “I should not fear for my rights at 14 years old,” to lifelong activist Clark Kissinger, who had found that taking to the streets in protest was the only way to effect meaningful change.

Experts say Georgia six-week abortion ban will lead to increase in illegal, unsafe abortions, infant and maternal mortality, traumatized children flooding the overwhelmed foster care system, pregnant people looking to the inadequate mental health resources and people having choices about the future wrested from them by legislators who will likely never be impacted by their own decisions.

At this point, we are all faced with a decision. Either we will sit down and apathetically submit ourselves to the decisions of those in power who claim to have our best interests in mind, or we will protest, argue, vote, make a scene, and mobilize in unity until we know that legislators will do what is actually best for us.

Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2022/09/13/anti-abortion-lawmakers-are-trying-to-rob-me-of-my-future/

U.S. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) ATTENDS A PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE U.S. CAPITOL ON AUGUST 05, 2022 IN WASHINGTON, DC. (PHOTO BY KEVIN DIETSCH / GETTY IMAGES)

“Every state will decide if abortion is legal and on what terms,” Sen. Lindsey Graham once said, and apparently didn’t mean.

Not even three months after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced a bill Tuesday that would ban abortion after 15 weeks.

Graham’s plan has little chance of success this year, but it’s an indication of where the mainstream GOP is headed and the policies they’ll pursue if they’re able to wrest back control of Congress. 

It also stands in stark contrast to the assurances from Republican leaders that once Roe was struck down, they’d let individual states decide abortion laws. 

While even more right-wing conservatives have signaled support for a national “fetal heartbeat” ban, Graham and other top Republicans cheered the Dobbs ruling as a win not only for the anti-abortion movement but also for the right of states to make their own laws.

In May, when the draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked, Graham condemned the leak of the opinion but cheered the opinion itself.

“If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, which I believe was one of the largest power grabs in the history of the Court, it means that every state will decide if abortion is legal and on what terms,” Graham, whose bill would prohibit more liberal states from deciding those terms, said in a May 3 statement

“That, in my view, is the most constitutionally sound way of dealing with this issue and the way the United States handled the issue until 1973.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, similarly applauded the opinion in June in a statement comparing Dobbs to the landmark desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe to the white supremacist ruling Brown overturned, Plessy v. Ferguson. 

“For 50 years, states have been unable to enact even modest protections for unborn children,” McConnell said in a statement. “[Congressional Democrats] would rather attack our institutions than let the American people enact the reasonable protections they want.”

Graham’s office told reporters last night that he, along with the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, would unveil the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act” on Tuesday. 

Graham said that he views his bill as “a responsible alternative to the very radical position by Democratic senators,” in an interview with Fox News. Graham was likely referring to the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would codify the protections of Roe v. Wade, though that bill has also failed in the Senate. 

Graham has introduced a version of this measure in every Congress since 2013, but in previous years, the bill would have banned abortion after 20 weeks. Graham already introduced a version of this measure last January; he was joined in that effort by 45 Senate cosponsors, including McConnell. 

This version would ban abortion after 15 weeks—a threshold similar to Florida’s new state law, which Republicans have presented as the moderate alternative to a “fetal heartbeat bill” like Texas’s. 

The bill would allow for exemptions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life and health of the mother, though the rape exemption would require patients to prove they obtained counseling or medical treatment, or reported the crime to law enforcement at least two full days before the abortion. The exception for the health of the mother also explicitly says that “psychological or emotional conditions” don’t count.

Republicans have sought to portray their posture as one of moderation which only prohibits “late-term” abortions, but that term is wholly used by anti-abortion rights conservatives to refer to third-trimester abortions—abortions after 24 weeks, which make up roughly 1 percent of all abortions in the U.S., according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Such procedures are usually done to protect the life and health of the mother or due to severe fetal anomalies.

The pivot of some Republicans on the issue began amid declining midterm prospects for Republicans, who had been expected to easily win control of Congress. In August, the reliably conservative state of Kansas overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would have allowed state lawmakers to restrict abortion rights, and in the months since Roe v. Wade, Democrats running in special congressional elections have outperformed President Joe Biden’s showing in those districts two years ago, including a shock win in upstate New York last month. 

Graham told Fox News Tuesday that Republicans should embrace his attempt to restrict abortion rights, and said candidates should “expose your Democratic opponent for being incredibly radical on the issue of abortion.”

“I don’t know what Democratic candidates in these contested states will say about a bill such as mine,” Graham told Fox News. “But I know the American people, or a significant majority, support limiting abortion at 15 weeks.” (A Gallup poll in May taken prior to the leak of the Dobbs decision found that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, support legal abortion under most or all circumstances.) 

Though the co-sponsors on this bill are not yet known, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky—who has fashioned himself as a libertarian—co-sponsored Graham’s bill last year to ban abortions after 20 weeks. But after the Dobbs decision, Paul told a Kentucky TV station he supported the “federalism” approach to abortion because “it allows each sort of community and state to make their own rules.” 

“We are a country with a lot of different ideas and different opinions as far as abortion goes,” Paul said. “So you’ll find that probably the rules will be different in California than they will be in Kentucky, and I think that reflects the population.”

Paul’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from VICE News Tuesday asking whether he would support Graham’s new bill.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k845q/lindsey-graham-national-abortion-ban

PA MEDIA

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service has called the new health secretary’s record on abortion rights “deeply concerning”.

Therese Coffey, appointed by new PM Liz Truss, has previously voted against extending access to abortion care.

Abortion charities have accused Ms Coffey of putting her personal beliefs “above expert clinical guidance”.

But Ms Coffey told the BBC abortion access already available in England will continue while she is in post.

Ms Coffey recently voted against making at-home abortion pills, introduced during the pandemic, permanently available in England and Wales.

It was a free vote in the Commons, meaning that MPs made a decision based on their own beliefs, rather than on party lines.

When asked about the vote, Ms Coffey said she was “a democrat and the vote was won in Parliament by people who wanted to make that permanent”.

“There are many other people who are exceptionally pro-abortion who did not want that to happen,” she said.

“However Parliament voted, it’s happened, and the regulations are already in place.”

She said as health secretary, she would focus on “what the vast majority of people use the NHS” for – ambulances, backlogs, care, doctors and dentists.

In June, when asked about her views on access to abortion in an interview with Sky News, Ms Coffey said: “Abortion law isn’t going to change in this country.”

Ms Coffey, who is a practising Catholic, said she would “prefer that people didn’t have abortions but I am not going to condemn people that do”.

As a backbencher in 2010, Ms Coffey also introduced a motion in Parliament which called for “mental health assessments” for women seeking an abortion.

Her motion in 2010 said: “In its 14 March 2008 statement the Royal College of Psychiatrists advised that healthcare professionals who assess or refer women who are requesting an abortion should assess for mental disorder and for risk factors that may be associated with its subsequent development” and called on the government to “give its full backing to mental health assessments for women presenting for abortion”.

She voted against extending abortion rights to women in Northern Ireland, but wrote at the time this was because she supported devolution and did not believe the UK Parliament should be “exercising direct rule on this issue”.

Ms Coffey also defended former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt after he said he believed the abortion limit should be reduced to 12 weeks, tweeting that the “majority of European countries have [a] 12 week limit #abortion”.

Clare Murphy, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said while politicians were entitled to their own views on abortion, what mattered was whether their “personal convictions stand in the way of women’s ability to act on their own”.

Ms Murphy told the BBC that by voting to revoke access to at-home abortion care, she was voting “against the advice of leading medical bodies including Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the BMA”.

“To have a health secretary who would place their personal beliefs above expert clinical guidance is deeply concerning.”

Ms Murphy said the UK should be “a beacon for women’s reproductive choice”, especially after the repeal of Roe v Wade, a legal precedent that safeguarded access to abortion in the US.

“Anti-abortion protest activity is escalating, with women and clinic staff facing intimidation while seeking to access and provide an NHS-funded service,” Ms Murphy said.

“Every week, women with complex medical conditions are forced to continue pregnancies against their will because of a lack of appointments within NHS hospital settings.

“We need a health secretary who wants to improve access to a medical procedure that one in three women will need in their lifetime, not impose further restrictions.”Media caption,

Rosie Duffield calls for the government to enshrine in law “a woman’s right to choose”.

When the new PM, Liz Truss, was foreign secretary, the UK government organised a multinational statement committing to the rights of women and girls as part of an intergovernmental conference it hosted in London in early July.

It was later amended to remove references to “sexual and reproductive health and rights” and “bodily autonomy”.

The joint statement was signed by 22 countries before it was amended. One country, Malta, where abortion is illegal, has signed since the amendment.

A question was tabled on 19 July 2022 to ask Ms Truss about the decision to remove reference to reproductive healthcare from the statement.

Foreign minister Vicky Ford responded on behalf of Ms Truss and said: “In our capacity as chair of the event, we amended the statement we made at the Freedom of Religion or Belief Conference to make the final statement more inclusive of all perspectives and views to allow for a constructive exchange of views on all issues.”

Labour MP Stella Creasy, who has campaigned to make abortion a human right in the UK, told the BBC: “There’s every reason to believe this new administration will lead to abortion access being reduced because the new prime minister herself removed a commitment to protecting this from her own international activity.

“It’s why we have to put the freedom of women in the UK to choose to have an abortion beyond interference just as the government has pledged to protect freedom of speech from interference too.”

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-62805268

ABORTION RIGHTS ACTIVISTS GATHER DURING A “RESTORE ROE” RALLY AT THE MICHIGAN STATE CAPITOL IN LANSING, ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2022. (PHOTO BY JEFF KOWALSKY / AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES)

“What a sad marker of the times,” the Michigan Supreme Court chief justice wrote.

Just five weeks after Kansas stunned the nation by voting in overwhelming numbers to preserve abortion rights in the state, voters in Michigan will also have a chance to decide the future of abortion.

On Thursday, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed to add an initiative to the ballot in November that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. Supporters of abortion rights had gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures in support of adding the initiative, especially after the overturning of Roe v. Wade earlier this summer turbocharged the national debate over abortion. 

The Michigan Supreme Court order came down just days after the Board of State Canvassers—which has two Republicans and two Democrats—had deadlocked on whether to certify the initiative, which meant it wouldn’t appear on the ballot. Opponents argued that the language of the initiative didn’t have enough visible spacing between words on the petitions shown to signers. 

In its order Thursday, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Board has “a clear legal duty to certify the petition.”

“The meaning of the words has not changed by the alleged insufficient spacing between them,” the court wrote.

In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Bridget McCormack noted that more people had signed in support of the ballot initiative than ever before in Michigan’s history.

“The challengers have not produced a single signer who claims to have been confused by the limited-spacing sections in the full text portion of the proposal. Yet two members of the Board of State Canvassers would prevent the people of Michigan from voting on the proposal because they believe that the decreased spacing makes the text no longer ‘[t]he full text,’” McCormack wrote. “They would disenfranchise millions of Michiganders not because they believe the many thousands of Michiganders who signed the proposal were confused by it, but because they think they have identified a technicality that allows them to do so, a game of gotcha gone very bad.”

“What a sad marker of the times,” McCormack added.

Michigan is one of several states where abortion will, either literally or effectively, be on the ballot. California and Vermont are also set to vote on whether to cement abortion rights into their state constitution, while Kentucky will vote on whether to clarify that its state constitution does not protect abortion. In numerous other states, Democrats need to hold onto or gain seats in order to prevent Republicans from limiting access to abortion.

Regardless of the outcome of the elections, abortion currently remains protected in Michigan. On Wednesday, a judge struck down a state 1931 law that banned most abortions by ruling that it violated the state constitution’s principles.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgpj9x/michigan-ballot-abortion-initiative-supreme-court

Some indie clinics in states that have banned or are expected to ban abortion say they won’t be able to stay open without help. 

“I don’t need to be called a hero. I need help … abortion providers can’t do it all by ourselves.”

Less than three months into this post-Roe world, each week brings news of more abortion clinics shutting down and moving away from the states that have banned or are expected to ban abortion. Most recently, all three of Louisiana’s remaining clinics announced plans to move out of the state; in Ohio, Women’s Med Center near Dayton is expected to end abortion care by Thursday and is expected to close by October.

But some independent clinics in states that have banned or are expected to ban abortion are fighting to stay open in an attempt to ensure that the end of legal abortion doesn’t mean the end of access to contraception, obstetric and gynecological care, and miscarriage management, especially in rural and other underserved areas.

However, these clinics say they’re in desperate need of more support. Without help, they won’t be able to keep their doors open.

‘People have tuned out’ in the South

West Alabama Women’s Center relaunched as a nonprofit reproductive health center in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in late June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Previously, 95 percent of its patients were terminating pregnancies; now, its mission is to provide comprehensive contraceptive access as well as prenatal care, treatment for pregnancy complications, and other general health care.

In the week following the Court’s decision, West Alabama Women’s Center raised approximately $180,000, according to Robin Marty, the director of operations. The bulk of that money went toward helping over 100 patients who had already completed their first of two abortion appointments to travel out of state to continue their care, Marty said; $40,000 went toward paying the clinic’s malpractice insurance for next year, and much of the rest was invested in emergency contraception, which West Alabama Women’s Center offers on a pay-what-you-can basis. But since the initial fundraising windfall, contributions have slowed to a trickle.

“We are almost two months post-Dobbs, and it appears that people have already decided that the South isn’t worth it,” Marty said in mid-August. “Not worth the effort, the money—any of it.”

Marty acknowledged that the volatile legal environment in many Southern states, which has led clinics in some states to open and close again several times, has likely contributed to the fundraising slowdown.

“There are so many crises that people have tuned out,” Marty said. She said she understands why many clinics are choosing to relocate but pointed out that even with more clinics in legal states, “there will never be enough money to help everyone travel out of state.” People living in Alabama and other states that ban abortion need contraception, and they need medical providers who won’t turn them away if they need follow-up care for pregnancy complications or after self-managing an abortion.

“Everybody says all of that is so important, but nobody wants to do anything to support it,” Marty said.

A key obstacle for West Alabama Women’s Center at this point is that the clinic can’t yet accept Medicaid—also a necessary step toward getting credentialed with private insurers—despite working toward getting state approval for the last seven months. Without that source of revenue, the clinic will be forced to close.

“We’re doing what we can to survive,” said Marty, who added that the clinic is making every effort to continue paying its staff, which mostly consists of Black women who are heads of their households. “I think we can make it to the end of the year, but if we do, that will be every single cent we have.”

West Alabama Women’s Center was forced to lay off a few staff members right before Marty spoke to Rewire News Group.

“It was heartbreaking,” she said, beginning to cry.

Clinics need funding

Elsewhere, some clinics are facing similar circumstances even before abortion has been banned completely. At Preterm in Cleveland, Ohio, finance director Aimee Maple said the clinic is seeing about 50 percent to 60 percent of its usual volume of patients. On the one hand, this is impressive given the fact that Ohio has a six-week abortion ban in effect and a 24-hour mandatory delay.

Before Roe was overturned, Preterm performed abortions up until 21 weeks and six days. The fact that the clinic is still seeing as many patients as they are is a testament to how hard staff are working. Maple said they’ve adjusted their hours so patients can come in early one one day for their first appointment, and later the following day, so that the 24-hour period will have passed and they can complete the process in just two days. However, half the normal volume means less revenue for the clinic, and Preterm has been forced to lay off some staff.

While Preterm is still figuring out exactly what its services will look like in the (likely) event Ohio lawmakers ban abortion entirely, the clinic will remain open.

“We’ve been here nearly 50 years,” Maple said. “We have no plans of going anywhere. Our patients aren’t going to stop calling us. They still need us for lots of things.”

On the day of the Court’s decision, for example, Maple said the clinic fielded dozens of calls from people in the community who were just looking for information.

Asked what type of support Preterm most needs at the moment, Maple answered quickly: “Money.”

‘Abortion providers can’t do it all by ourselves’

In Arizona, abortion is technically still legal, but Dr. DeShawn Taylor has struggled to keep her practice, Desert Star Family Planning, which is one of a handful in the country owned by a Black doctor, afloat.

She was already understaffed because of her COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees, she said, and given the expectation that abortion would be banned in Arizona, many staff members left due to concerns about their job security. By the time the Supreme Court overturned Roe in June, staff had dwindled to Taylor, a receptionist, and a nurse.

After the decision, there was significant confusion in Arizona about whether the state’s pre-Roe ban could be enforced, and abortion providers were also concerned about a 2021 fetal “personhood” law that would make it a crime to perform abortions for a “genetic abnormality” and empower civilians to sue abortion providers for violating the law. Initially, most clinics in Arizona stopped providing abortion services. But Taylor said that after a federal judge blocked the “personhood” law on July 11, she felt comfortable resuming. However, her nurse did not.

With the help of her receptionist and volunteers, Taylor was able to resume providing medication abortions only and also ramped up other services, including general gynecologic care and gender-affirming care, as much as possible, but financially, that first month was a struggle.

The experience is also taking a deep emotional toll on Taylor, and on every other abortion provider I’ve spoken with recently.

“When I realized I had only provided five abortions in July, I cried,” she said. Though Taylor managed to increase the number of medication abortions she provided in August, she isn’t satisfied.

“My hands are being tied because I don’t have any help in the clinic,” Taylor said. “There’s all this righteous indignation, but where are the people who will come into the clinic and help us make sure we can give abortions while we can still do it?”

While abortion remains legal in Arizona for now, Taylor does expect that will change. And when it does, she wants to be there to continue caring for patients who may not get the help they need in an emergency room.

“It’s so important for independent clinics especially to remain, because we provide miscarriage management,” Taylor said. “In the nine years I’ve had my practice here, I have increasingly been managing miscarriages, and increasingly diagnosing and managing ectopic pregnancies that were missed. Thankfully, those patients wanted an abortion and ended up in my clinic.”

Increasingly, Taylor suspects that patients experiencing these pregnancy complications receive substandard care due not to ideology but to lack of training, a problem likely to grow worse in an increasingly restrictive environment.

“I don’t need to be called a hero. I need help,” she said. “There is this disconnect, where everybody wants abortion seekers to get their abortions. And I want that, too. But abortion providers can’t do it all by ourselves. I tried. It’s not sustainable. I’m a human being too. I feel that my humanity is being disregarded.”

Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2022/09/09/clinics-in-anti-abortion-states-struggle-to-stay-open/