If Judge Brett Kavanaugh is appointed to the US Supreme Court, his tenure could represent the greatest threat to reproductive freedoms since the landmark 1973 case Roe v Wade legalized abortion in America, many reproductive rights groupshave said.

Although Kavanaugh’s record on reproductive rights is limited, President Trump made pro-life views a litmus test for filling retired Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat. Kavanaugh is a Catholic, and in the past argued against allowing a pregnant 17-year-old undocumented migrant to obtain an abortion.

A final vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation could come as early as Saturday. Republicans have a two-vote margin to approve Kavanaugh, whose confirmation process has been mired in allegations of attempted rape and sexual assault. He denies the allegations.

Already, there are cases in the pipeline that could give the supreme court an opportunity to severely limit women’s access to abortion, either by overturning Roe v Wade or hollowing out its protections.

  • Nearly half of US states could limit abortion within two years

    There are already two cases before appellate courts, one level down from the supreme court, that could give the country’s highest court an opportunity to limit abortion access as soon as June 2019.

    If Roe v Wade was overturned, 24 US states would likely move to ban or severely limit abortion upon reconvening, at earliest within seven months of the supreme court’s decision.

  • If Roe v Wade was overturned, four states would automatically ban abortion

    Mississippi, Louisiana, North Dakota and South Dakota, already have “trigger laws”, or statutes that would automatically ban abortion if Roe v Wade were overturned.

    However, across broad parts of America, the move would also likely prompt many other state legislatures to try to pass new laws to restrict abortion access. Those most likely to do so are those which have already enacted severe restrictions.

  • Twenty-one states already have severe limits

    For example, 21 states limit when a pregnant woman can get an abortion based on the age of the fetus. For example, in Iowa, that restriction is based on when doctors can hear a heartbeat, at about six weeks. Because that is before most women know they are pregnant, it is effectively a de facto ban on abortion.

    Laws that ban abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb are unconstitutional, but 21 states have nevertheless passed such bans, most at 20 weeks. Most fetuses do not survive outside the womb before 24 weeks. A full-term pregnancy is 39 weeks. Many of these laws are the subject of court challenges.

  • Twenty-four states have anti-abortion legislatures

    Twenty-four states have anti-abortion legislatures, making it likely they would move to enact abortion restrictions after a supreme court decision further restricted abortion. They would also be likely to several restrict access.

Source: Center for Reproductive Rights

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/jun/30/abortion-supreme-court-law-anthony-kennedy?CMP=fb_gu

The internet’s mood can be described in two words, one hashtag: #CancelKavanaugh.

In a final effort to stop Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the Women’s March and other organizations have announced the Cancel Kavanaugh march, which will take place in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 4. Nationwide demonstrations are also scheduled for the next few days.

Some reports say the FBI’s investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh could wrap up sooner than the end of the week, which means the Senate might vote on his nomination by Friday. But don’t panic because the fight is not over.

Liberal activists believe they have a shot at convincing Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Jeff Flake of Arizona, along with Democratic senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, to vote no on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Protestors and sexual assault survivors have confronted some of those senators to discuss their decisions, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, saidRepublicans “will not be intimidated by these people.”

If McConnell’s tone-deaf sentiment inspires you even more to hold elected officials accountable in person, or you just want to take part in the #CancelKavanaugh movement, here’s everything you need to know about Thursday’s march:

Who is organizing?

The march will be hosted by the Women’s March, UltraViolet, CPD Action, Demand Justice, the National Action Network, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and MomsRising.org, according to the “Cancel Kavanaugh: Believe Survivors” event page.

When and where is the march?

The march will take place on Thursday, Oct. 4 at 12:30 p.m. ET at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse, located at 333 Constitution Ave NW, and will move toward the Supreme Court building.  If you’d like to participate, make sure to register here.

Is transportation provided?

As of right now, the Women’s March is coordinating free buses to Washington, D.C. from New York CityBoston, and West Virginia. The event’s registration form suggests bus transportation from both Philadelphia and Atlanta may also be available.

Can people donate to the cause?

If you can’t attend the Cancel Kavanaugh march, you can still support it by donating to this CrowdRise campaign.

Whether you attend the march or not, it’s crucial you contact your senators. Make your voice heard because abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, and voting rights (to name a few) could be at stake if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Giving Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court would also send a disturbing message to survivors of sexual abuse and assault.

“The stakes are too damn too high to let the GOP railroad this vote,” Jess Morales Rocketto, the political director at National Domestic Workers Alliance, said in a statement Wednesday. (Rocketto confronted Sen. Ted Cruz in an elevator last week and shared her story of sexual assault.) “Any way that we need to speak truth to power, we will do it. That’s why we’re literally everywhere: in the Senate halls, in elevators, in front of the courthouse, and on your TV channel. Brett Kavanaugh’s time is up!”

Source: https://mashable.com/article/womens-march-cancel-kavanaugh/?europe=true#.ylrPeUKHPqm

“This is how extremist views creep into the mainstream,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) in a September letter urged House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to include the anti-choice language in the next round of GOP tax cuts.

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed a package of bills dubbed “Tax Reform 2.0” containing a provision extending the ability to count “unborn children” as beneficiaries under 529 education savings plans.

The tax bill is being advanced outside the budget reconciliation process, which means it’s unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to pass the closely divided U.S. Senate without a filibuster, though it may be taken up after the midterm elections.

The GOP’s Family Savings Act, part of a package of tax legislation that passed the lower chamber by a 240-177 vote, is the latest effort by anti-choice legislators to insert so-called personhood language into the tax code. “Nothing shall prevent an unborn child from being treated as a designated beneficiary or an individual under this section,” reads the bill, referring to 529 tax-deferred plans for education savings. The provision is similar to language inserted in tax reform legislation that passed the House last November before being removed in conference.

So-called personhood laws, backed by abortion rights foes and recently embraced by congressional Republicans, aim to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” granting them legal protection under the U.S. Constitution. “Personhood” laws have been rejected by voters in ballot measures across the United States.

“It’s yet another attempt to slip something into the tax code to define personhood,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, in a statement to Rewire.News. “This is how extremist views creep into the mainstream. Provisions like this one should never become law—they can lead to limits on access to abortion and even birth control.”

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) said in a statement said Democratic lawmakers should remain vigilant of any attempt by congressional Republicans to push anti-choice measures through larger bills, even if those bills don’t stand much of a chance in the Senate.

“In addition to exploding our deficit and leaving hard-working American families behind, the GOP’s Tax Plan 2.0 advances a clear political agenda to limit access to safe, legal abortions,” Moore said. “This personhood language undermines women’s rights and has absolutely no place US tax law. … Democrats must continue stand strong in opposition to these radical GOP policies designed exclusively to benefit the privileged at the expense of the vulnerable.”

“Even in addition to making the tax cuts for individuals permanent, it also gives a whole lot of options for families saving for education and those savings accounts,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), chair of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, said in a floor speech before the bill’s passage. Meadows in an early September letter urged House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to include the anti-choice language in the next round of tax reform.

Anti-choice activists applauded the bill’s inclusion of “personhood” language. “[The bill] will deliver much-needed relief for growing families and adoptive parents, while recognizing—for the first time in the tax code—the humanity of the child in the womb,” said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. “Pregnant moms and expectant parents will finally have the opportunity to get started on planning for their child’s college education.”

The statement by Perkins appears to be mistaken, as expectant parents can already open a 529 planlisting themselves as the beneficiary before switching it over to the child once they are born. Current law requires Social Security numbers for all 529 beneficiaries.

“This may be the last action we see taken on this issue in 2018, as its unlikely those changes would get to the White House this year,” tax policy expert Jon Traub, managing principal of the tax policy group at Deloitte, said in a statement. “The other two pieces of Tax Cuts 2.0—expanding retirement savings and incentives for innovation among start-ups—could find new life in a post-election Lame Duck session of Congress.”

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/10/01/house-republicans-jam-personhood-language-into-new-tax-bill/

Women seeking abortions will have to go to Planned Parenthood’s St. Louis clinic or travel to neighboring states, said a Planned Parenthood spokesperson.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.— Missouri is down to one clinic providing abortions Wednesday, after the only other clinic in the state that performs the procedure failed to adhere to new state requirements.

Federal appeals court judges ruled last month that Missouri can enforce a requirement that doctors must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals before they can perform abortions. The judges issued a mandate Monday for that rule to officially take effect.

The Columbia Planned Parenthood clinic was unable to secure physician privileges to comply with the requirement, so it cancelled abortions scheduled for Wednesday, which would have been the first since the mandate was issued, Planned Parenthood Great Plains spokeswoman Emily Miller said. The clinic continues to provide other health care services.

“We are unable to provide abortion services now, so we’ve been working with patients who were on the schedule for today for abortion appointments to let them know what their alternatives are,” Miller said.

Women seeking abortions can go to Planned Parenthood’s St. Louis clinic — which is now the only facility in Missouri where abortions can be performed — or travel to neighboring states, she said.

Planned Parenthood attorneys had asked U.S. Western District Court Judge Brian Wimes to temporarily exempt the Columbia clinic from the requirement before Wednesday. Wimes hasn’t yet ruled on that request.

If Wimes does decide to grant a temporary restraining order on the law, abortions could resume in at the clinic.

Planned Parenthood affiliates with Missouri health centers filed the underlying lawsuit to block state requirements on admitting privileges and mandates that clinics meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 struck down similar rules in Texas.

U.S District Judge Howard Sachs in May 2017 issued a temporary restraining order to block the admitting privileges rule. But his action was undone in September by judges on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who argued Sachs didn’t do enough to weigh the cost benefits of Missouri’s rules and sent the case back to the lower court.

The underlying challenge to the Missouri abortion regulations is still pending.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-down-one-abortion-clinic-new-law-takes-effect-n916241?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

Governor works late to sign or veto bills on last day of session

Gov. Jerry Brown reviews a measure with staff members Camille Wagner, left, Graciela Castillo-Krings at his Capitol office, Sunday, Sept. 30, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif. Sunday is the last day for Brown to approve or veto bills passed by the legislature. Brown, who will be leaving office in January, is acting on some on the last pieces of legislation in his tenure as governor. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday vetoed a measure that would have required public university student health centers to provide abortion medication by no later than Jan. 1, 2022.

Brown noted in his veto message that “the average distance to abortion providers in campus communities varies from five to seven miles, not an unreasonable distance.”

“Because the services required by this bill are widely available off-campus, this bill is not necessary,” he wrote.

To pay for the cost of implementation, the bill would have required $9.6 million in private funding to provide a $200,000 grant to all public universities. It also would have provided a $200,000 grant to both the University of California and California State University systems to provide 24-hour telephone patient support for abortion medication recipients.

When the bill’s author, Connie Leyva, D-Chino, introduced the bill, she said that “a woman should always have the right to decide when she incorporates a family into her life.”

She vowed Sunday to reintroduce the proposal next session“As the Trump Administration continues to unravel many of the critical health care protections and services for women, legislation such as this is urgently needed to make sure that Californians are able to access the full range of reproductive care regardless of where they may live,” Leyva said in a statement.

“As the Trump Administration continues to unravel many of the critical health care protections and services for women, legislation such as this is urgently needed to make sure that Californians are able to access the full range of reproductive care regardless of where they may live,” Leyva said in a statement.

Also Sunday, Brown signed Assembly Bill 1976, which starting next year, requires employers to provide their workers with a private area that is not a bathroom to pump.

The measure, by Assemblywoman Monique Limón, D-Goleta, allows businesses to apply for an exemption if they can show that making a space available for breast pumping would be an undue hardship.

Existing law already requires employers to make a reasonable effort to provide both a lactation space that is not a bathroom stall and breaks for workers who need to pump breast milk.

Proponents of AB 1976 argued that the bill would create cleaner and safer areas for pumping. They noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children be fed breast milk until at least six months of age, but an unsupportive work environment presents a significant hurdle to many mothers, especially women of color.

Opponents said the bill would be onerous for employers, and that it will expose them to frivolous lawsuits.

Brown vetoed another measure, Senate Bill 937, that would have gone even further by requiring amenities such as access to a power source and either a refrigerator or cooler in the private pumping area.

California will also require its workers to take regular sexual harassment training and forbid secret settlements when they sue their employers.

Brown on Sunday signed several bills that aim to prevent workplace harassment and help victims of sexual misconduct seek justice.

After explosive reporting last fall uncovered widespread abuse by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, the #MeToo movement ignited a national discussion on sexual harassment, including in California politics.

Lawmakers responded this session by passing more than a dozen measures that experts said could make the state a national leader on the issue.

Among the proposals Brown signed were:

▪ Senate Bill 820, by Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, which prohibits secret settlements and non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases. While a victim could choose to keep his or her name private, the perpetrator’s identity cannot be confidential. “For decades, secret settlements have been used by wealthy and well-connected perpetrators to offend repeatedly with no public accountability,” Leyva said in a statement. “This critical legislation will empower victims and offer them the opportunity to finally say #TimesUp to those that have hurt them.”

▪ Senate Bill 1300, by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, which forbids companies from requiring their workers to sign releases of liability as a condition of continued employment or in exchange for a bonus. “California is stating clearly that we believe and support victims,” Jackson said in a statement.

▪ Senate Bill 1343, by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, which expands a biannual sexual harassment training mandate to nearly all California employees.

▪ Assembly Bill 1619, by Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto, which provides victims up to a decade to seek civil damages from a sexual assault.

▪ Senate Bill 419, by Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, which prohibits the Legislature from firing or discriminating against an employee or lobbyist who files a harassment complaint. It also requires the Senate and Assembly to maintain records of harassment complaints for at least 12 years.

▪ Assembly Bill 2055, by Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Greenbrae, which adds information about the Legislature’s sexual harassment policy to ethics training for lobbyists.

▪ Assembly Bill 3118, by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, which requires a statewide audit of untested rape kits. “Given the current national conversation around sexual assault, it is more important now than ever that survivors of sexual assault know that California is working to get them the justice they deserve,” Chiu said in a statement.

Brown vetoed a handful of bills that he said went too far, including:

▪ Assembly Bill 1867, by Assemblywoman Eloise Reyes, D-Grand Terrace, which would have mandated that large companies maintain records of sexual harassment complaints for at least five years after the end of the alleged harasser’s employment. Brown said in his veto message that the time expansion, which could lead to even unsubstantiated claims being maintained for decades, was “unwarranted.”

Assembly Bill 2713, by Assemblyman Freddie Rodriguez, D-Pomona, which requires the state to publish an annual report on sexual harassment reports and settlements in California government agencies. The Bee reported last year that the state does not officially track such cases across departmental lines. Brown said the measure “covers an important topic but current management practices are taking the necessary steps to assure a suitable work environment.”

Earlier in the year, the Legislature extended whistleblower protections to Capitol employees and developed a new process for reporting and investigating internal complaints of sexual harassment.

Current and former staff had complained of a culture of fear and retaliation, which women said discouraged them from reporting pervasive harassment and allowed it to go unpunished. Three members ultimately resigned amid public allegations of sexual misconduct, and complaints were lodged against at least four more.

Sacramento Bee staff writer Andrew Sheeler contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/30/abortion-pill-mandate-for-state-universities-vetoed-by-brown/

‘In your memory, and towards our liberation, we continue the fight for reproductive justice’

Emma Warson has written an open letter to Dr Savita Halappanavar, who died in 2012 at the age of 31 after being denied an abortion in Ireland.

Dr Halappanavar, who worked as a dentist, had been 17 weeks pregnant with her first child when she and her husband found out that she was extremely likely to experience a miscarriage.

After asking if she could have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, Dr Halappanavar and her husband Praveen were told that it wasn’t allowed “under Irish law”, unless there was evidence that her life was at risk.

On October 28 2012, Dr Halappanavar died from cardiac arrest caused by a septic miscarriage.

Her death made a huge impact in Ireland and spurred a movement in the country to repeal the eighth amendment, the law in the constitution that banned abortion in almost all circumstances, and stated that a pregnant woman and a foetus have an “equal right to life”.

In Watson’s letter, which is published in Porter magazine, she opens saying: “Dear Dr Savita Halappanavar, you didn’t want to become the face of a movement; you wanted a procedure that would have saved your life.

“When news of your death broke in 2012, the urgent call to action from Irish activists reverberated around the world – repeal the eighth amendment of the Irish constitution.”

She continues, highlighting the significance of the “historic feminist victory” that took place in Ireland when the country voted to repeal the eighth amendment of its constitution on May 25 this year.

As people in Ireland voted to repeal the eighth amendment in May, many also left flowers and messages at the site of a mural of Dr Halappanavar in central Dublin, which had been created in tribute to her.

“A note on your memorial in Dublin read, ‘Because you slept, many of us woke.’ That the eighth amendment enabled valuing the life of an unborn foetus over a living woman was a wake-up call to a nation,” Watson writes.

Following the referendum in Ireland, there have been multiple calls for abortion law in Northern Ireland to also be reformed.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, there are currently 26 regions around the world where abortion is completely outlawed, with no exceptions.

These regions include Egypt, Madagascar, Iraq and the Philippines.

“From Argentina to Poland, restrictive abortion laws punish and endanger girls, women and pregnant people,” Watson writes.

The mural of Savita Halappanavar in Dublin, Ireland, on May 26 (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)

“Still, Northern Ireland’s abortion law predates the lightbulb.

“In your memory, and towards our liberation, we continue the fight for reproductive justice.”

You can read the full letter in Porter magazine here.

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/emma-watson-savita-halappanavar-abortion-ireland-death-miscarriage-letter-porter-magazine-a8563131.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1538410798

Up to one in five U.S. voters may not know what the law really is.

Ever since Roe v. Wade established the constitutional right to abortion, federal and state policymakers have been chipping away at what it really means for people seeking abortion care. Since 2011, states have passed more than 400 abortion restrictions. Now, with President Donald Trump’s promise to appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme Court committed to overturning Roe v. Wade (such as current nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh), the threat of government action to more fully undermine abortion access looms large.

Based simply on laws already on the books, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would automatically be banned in four states and could become more restricted in 12 additional ones. This urgent threat to people’s ability to obtain abortion care has been the focus of recent advocacy campaigns, particularly when spurring opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination.

These efforts assume that people have a basic idea of what is at stake. But they might not.

A recent poll by the California-based marketing and opinion research firm Probolsky Research, which I analyzed, assessed knowledge of abortion legality. Over a 12-day period in March and April 2018, 1,000 U.S. voters were asked: “As far as you know, is abortion legal in your state?” Nearly 8 in 10 voters answered “yes,” but 12 percent responded that they did not know and 8 percent thought it was illegal.

Knowledge of abortion legality did not differ by race and ethnicity, age, or gender. Instead, education and political climate were the main characteristics associated with knowledge. Some 35 percent of polled voters with a high school degree or less did not know if abortion was legal in their state compared to 16 percent of voters who were college graduates. Living in a state with abortion restrictions was also associated with lower levels of knowledge. At the time the poll was conducted, the Guttmacher Institute considered 29 states to be hostile to abortion rights because they had enacted four or more key restrictions. In hostile states, nearly 24 percent of voters did not know if abortion was legal compared to 11 percent in states that were supportive of abortion rights. This association between policy climate and knowledge remained constant even when we controlled for education levels and other personal characteristics

The idea that individuals with less education have less accurate knowledge has been found to apply to a range of political and other issues. Associations between abortion policy climate and awareness of abortion legality require a little more explanation. A number of states considered hostile to abortion rights have enacted numerous abortion laws over the last decade. These restrictions were quite controversial in some states and received extensive local, and even national, media coverage. For example, when HB 2 was enacted in Texas, more than half of the abortion facilities closed, and this was covered by domesticand international news agencies. Abortion restrictions imposed in smaller states may not have received as much national attention, but were covered by local media. Some individuals, particularly those living in restrictive states, may have been “passively” exposed to this coverage. They may not have paid close attention to the content of the stories, but merely noted that one or more abortion laws had been passed. They may have assumed that these laws made abortion illegal or, upon being questioned about the legality of the procedure, realized they did not know how the laws affected abortion in their state.

The data discussed in this article is not without its flaws. Like polls conducted by Pew and Gallup, this one had a low response rate, and the information cannot be considered to be representative of all U.S. voters. Still, there is undoubtedly some truth in the patterns that emerged from information provided by 1,000 respondents. It is possible that accurate knowledge of the legality of abortion is even lower among nonvoting individuals—as voters are more educated, on average, than non-voters.

Abortion rights have always been embattled and have become more so over the last decade. This situation promises to get worse if the Supreme Court becomes increasingly hostile to abortion access. Even in the absence of an anti-choice individual being appointed to the Court, state-level efforts to restrict or abolish legal abortion will undoubtedly persist. Abortion restrictions not only make it harder for individuals to terminate their pregnancies, but attention around them may have the secondary effect of making people question whether abortion is even legal. Findings from this poll suggest that efforts to oppose state and national abortion restrictions need to be placed in a larger context. If people don’t even know that abortion is legal, they may not realize just how much is at stake.

https://rewire.news/article/2018/09/20/as-danger-to-roe-grows-many-voters-may-not-even-know-that-abortion-is-legal/

Alba Lorena Rodríguez poses for a portrait inside of Ilopango women’s prison on Sept. 3.

 Alba Lorena Rodríguez was five months pregnant when she started to feel sharp pains in her stomach while at home in December 2009. She fainted.

When she awoke, she says, she realized she had lost her baby.

Rodríguez, now 39, says she had a miscarriage. But the state accused her of killing the fetus, and she was convicted of aggravated homicide in a suspected abortion case. She denies having an abortion and says she mourned her miscarriage.

“Tell me, if I had intended to kill the baby, would I have held a vigil?” Rodríguez said during an interview at Ilopango women’s prison on the outskirts of San Salvador, where she has served eight years of a 30-year sentence.

Rodríguez is one of at least 25 women who have been incarcerated — many facing decades-long sentences — since El Salvador made abortion illegal under all circumstances in 1998. Most of these women claim to have had late-term obstetric emergencies or stillbirths. Many have been separated from their children while in prison.

Two of them were released this year after they successfully appealed their convictions. Now, Rodríguez is petitioning to have her sentence shortened based on a lack of evidence. Lawyers, activists and legislators are hoping the rulings to release these women will eventually translate into a more lenient abortion law.

El Salvador is one of 26 countries with an absolute ban on abortions, and its battle over abortion rights is echoed around the globe, with several countries grappling with changes to legislation. Ireland, Brazil and Chile, among others, have made moves to loosen restrictions on abortion in recent months.

In other places, including ­Poland and parts of the United States, abortion rights are facing renewed challenges. In August, legislators in Argentina voted by a narrow margin against legalizing abortion for pregnancies of up to 14 weeks.

In El Salvador, Rodríguez is part of a group of women referred to as “Las 17” — “The Seventeen” — for the 17 identified cases of women imprisoned under the country’s abortion laws when the campaign to release them began in 2013.

Victor Hugo Mata, a lawyer with the Citizens’ Group for the Decriminalization of Abortion, which works to free the women, said he thinks bias plays into ­judges’ decisions to condemn these women.

“When [these types of miscarriages] happen to a woman, judges assume it’s because there’s something more there. To them, it’s not possible that they could be innocent,” Mata said. “There are very few judges who see it differently.”

Rodríguez said she was barely given a chance to speak at her trial. Her attorney, a public defender she had met that day, knew few details about her case, she said. On July 15, 2010, Rodríguez was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Thousands of Salvadoran women have abortions each year. The most recent statistics from the Salvadoran Health Ministry report an estimated 19,290 clandestine abortions from 2005 to 2008. Women who can afford it pay for abortions at private clinics or travel outside the country to have an abortion, according to activists.

The Salvadoran state has started to review cases and release some of the imprisoned women. In ­February, Teodora del Carmen Vásquez was released after 10 years behind bars for aggravated homicide for what she says was a late-term miscarriage.


Women cry outside the Isidro Menendez Judicial Center after a December 2017 hearing to review the sentence handed down to Teodora del Carmen Vásquez in 2008 under a draconian antiabortion law. (Oscar Rivera/AFP/Getty Images)

After reviewing Vásquez’s case, the Salvadoran Supreme Court ­determined that there was not enough evidence to prove that she had caused harm to the fetus. The court stated that “justice, equity and other legal reasons” led to the decision to commute her sentence.

One month later, in March, Maira Verónica Figueroa Marroquín, who was accused of aggravated homicide in 2003 at age 19, was released when the Salvadoran Justice Ministry determined that her charges were “excessive and immoral.”

The Citizens’ Group has been successful in securing the release of some women, but passing progressive legislation has been more challenging.

Two proposals in El Salvador’s legislature this spring gave abortion rights activists new hope.

Johnny Wright Sol, a member of the right-wing ARENA party, broke with his party line to introduce a bill that would legalize abortions in two cases — the rape of a minor and when the mother’s life or health is in danger.

A bill by Lorena Peña of the left-wing FMLN party went further, proposing that abortions be allowed in all cases of rape and cases of an unviable fetus.

In April, evangelical and Catholic groups showed their dis­approval for the proposals in a “March for Life” through the streets of San Salvador.

“We see the legislation proposed in our country, proposed by representatives from FMLN, mainly Lorena Peña, to depenalize abortion as a danger and a threat,” evangelical pastor Numa Rodezno, one of the organizers, told local media on the day of the march.

But the two proposals were not brought for a vote before the Salvadoran national assembly. On May 1, new representatives took office, and the right-wing ARENA party, which now holds the most seats in the assembly, is unlikely to consider any measures decriminalizing abortion.

Yet activists believe the proposals contributed to a shift in attitudes on abortion in El Salvador. A 2018 public opinion poll by the University of Central America showed that more than 50 percent of Salvadorans support legalizing abortion when a mother’s life is in danger or when the fetus is not viable.

“The discussion in the public sphere generated by the proposals to depenalize abortion has caused other people and groups, besides just the feminist groups that were already talking about the issue, to take a stand,” said Sara García of the Citizens’ Group.

As of September, Rodríguez remains behind bars while awaiting a decision on her appeal. She said the worst part of being imprisoned is being separated from her two daughters, now 10 and 14.

“My daughters always ask me, ‘When are you going to leave here, Mom? When are you going to be home with us?’ ” Rodríguez said. “And I tell them that I’m leaving soon and that I’m going to be with them soon.”


People demand the release of Teodora del Carmen Vásquez in front of the Isidro Menendez Judicial Center in San Salvador in December 2017. Vásquez was released in February 2018. (Oscar Rivera/AFP/Getty Images)
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/women-serving-decades-long-prison-terms-for-abortion-in-el-salvador-hope-change-is-coming/2018/09/26/0048119e-a62c-11e8-ad6f-080770dcddc2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.89b4681c68bc

She argued one of recent history’s most important abortion cases. And now, with her Lawyering Project team, she’s pushing beyond the tried-and-true legal playbook.

The night before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Stephanie Toti spent hours baking—pound cake, banana bread, cookies—to calm her nerves.

Toti, then 37 years old, was a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), and this landmark abortion rights case was her first appearance before the nation’s highest court. When the court ruled 5-3 in favor of the clinics on June 27, 2016, it marked the culmination of years of work and a new beginning.

In September 2017, Toti started her own nonprofit, the Lawyering Project, which builds off the Whole Woman’s Healthprecedent to strengthen protections for reproductive rights. Toti had never thought about starting her own law practice before, but the Supreme Court’s decision, along with the election of Donald Trump four months later, felt like a watershed moment.

“I thought there was an opportunity, and maybe a need, for some innovation and some experimentation. And I was in a position to do that,” Toti said in a phone interview with Rewire.News. “The best way to do that would be at a small organization that had more freedom to take risks and experiment with new strategies.”

Before the Whole Woman’s Health decision, Toti said the reproductive rights movement had been somewhat risk-averse in terms of legal strategy. Cases tended to be reactive, focused on blocking new anti-choice laws as they popped up, rather than proactive. There was also reluctance to bring cases that didn’t seem like clear wins, which meant many harmful laws went unchallenged. Amy Hagstrom Miller, the president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, said she took flak for bringing Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt due to concerns it would lose and set precedent that could potentially even further restrict reproductive rights in the United States.

“People were nervous about us bringing this case because it could set a standard that was harmful,” Hagstrom Miller said. “That was one of the reasons the repro movement had not brought a case [to the U.S. Supreme Court] in ten to 15 years: People were afraid it could get worse.”

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Whole Woman’s Health, the decision galvanized the reproductive rights movement and demonstrated that taking legal risks could pay off. Toti wanted to build on that momentum with new kinds of lawsuits, representing new kinds of plaintiffs, that aimed to have a larger impact. With its staff of eight—six lawyers and two program managers, spread out across the country—the Lawyering Project is using the precedent to pioneer a legal strategy that is bold, fresh, and intersectional. It’s a small organization, but it’s taking big swings.

In June, the Lawyering Project filed two “comprehensive repeal” lawsuits in Texas and Indiana that challenge five categories of abortion restrictions, encompassing dozens of laws, in one fell swoop, including: targeted regulation of abortion provider (TRAP) laws; restrictions on medication abortion and telemedicine abortionmandatory counseling requirementsparental consent laws for minors; and those that criminalize abortion providers. Some of these laws have been on the books for decades.

“Rather than focusing on a single law that is restricting access, we look at the whole landscape of laws to highlight the ways they work together to impose obstacles on people seeking care,” said Toti. “It’s not just the ban on telemedicine or the mandatory delays or the forced ultrasound or the inaccurate medical disclosures. It’s all of those things working together.”

Another part of the Lawyering Project’s legal strategy is to include a greater diversity of plaintiffs in the litigation process. Abortion providers have traditionally served as plaintiffs in abortion litigation, while smaller, grassroots organizations, like abortion funds, were not involved, even though the cases affected the people they served. In the Whole Woman’s Health decision, the Supreme Court recognized that just because abortion is accessible to some doesn’t mean it’s accessible to all. Many women do not have access to the money, transportation, child care, or flexible working hours that enable them to drive long distances or make multiple trips to a clinic, and that represents an undue burden.

To illuminate these disparities, Toti and her team are partnering with abortion funds and reproductive justice organizations, many which have never participated in this type of litigation before. The goal is to represent a broader array of voices and perspectives in court.

“We are demonstrating how these laws not only interfere with abortion care, but also how they have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged communities and those battling other forms of oppression, like racism and poverty,” Toti said.

In Indiana, the Lawyering Project is representing Whole Woman’s Health Alliance (the nonprofit arm of Whole Woman’s Health) and All-Options Pregnancy Resource Center in a comprehensive repeal suit. Located in Bloomington, All-Options helps people navigate decision-making around pregnancy, parenting, abortion, and adoption and connects them to resources, whether it’s abortion funding or free diapers.

Executive Director Parker Dockray said this full-spectrum approach gives the organization a unique perspective on how abortion restrictions fit into the larger framework of reproductive justice. When the Lawyering Project asked if All-Options would be interested in serving as a plaintiff, the team eagerly said yes.

“It’s exciting for us to bring the voices of people who may never become patients at an abortion clinic because they can’t actually get to the abortion,” Dockray said. “For people who are denied abortion care or do not have the resources, we see their struggle from their beginning. That’s a powerful perspective, and I think it makes us a great plaintiff.”

In the Texas case, plaintiffs include Whole Woman’s Health Alliance; the Afiya Center, a Dallas-based reproductive justice organization; abortion funds Fund Texas Choice, North Texas Equal Access Fund, West Fund, and Lilith Fund; and physician Bhavik Kumar.

Lilith Fund provides direct financial assistance to people seeking to end unwanted pregnancies and provided $298,817 in support to 1,475 people in 2017. Executive Director Amanda Williams said participating in litigation fits into Lilith Fund’s overarching mission.

“While abortion funding is and has always been central to our mission, we know that if we don’t work to fight back against attacks in systemic ways, things will never change,” Williams said in an email to Rewire.News. “What we accomplish with the lawsuit will lay important groundwork for influencing policy at local, state, and federal levels going forward. We should take any and every opportunity to expose the web of unnecessary restrictions the Texas legislature puts in the way of its people.”

To Pepis Rodriguez, who joined the Lawyering Project as a litigation counsel in March 2018, the organization’s commitment to partnering with grassroots plaintiffs was a big draw. Rodriguez graduated from Georgetown Law School in 2015 and spent two and a half years as a staff attorney at the Center for HIV Law and Policy. The Lawyering Project’s innovative, intersectional approach to reproductive rights litigation appealed to him as a new attorney.

“It strikes me as courageous lawyering,” he said. “We’re trying new things and telling new stories. Being able to bring in more voices and expand the kinds of evidence in the record that carry weight, that’s very important and exciting. In my view, that’s the way the work should be done.”

The Lawyering Project is a new addition to the constellation of organizations that are using the Whole Woman’s Health decision to protect and advance reproductive rights in the Trump era. Over the past two years, the American Civil Liberties Union, the CRR, and Planned Parenthood have filed dozens of lawsuits across the country that build off the precedent. Because these larger institutions are so active about blocking new abortion restrictions as they pop up, Rodriguez said this creates space for the Lawyering Project to pursue more unconventional strategies, push boundaries, and take risks that could have a seismic impact if successful.

“Those organizations are like this doorstop that keeps new restrictions from piling up,” he said. “Great, y’all are handling that. Meanwhile, we are going to try to dismantle the entire scheme and bring the whole thing down.”

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/09/26/litigate-and-innovate-in-abortion-law/

Blantyre, Malawi — David Minyatso holds the voter registration card of his late wife, Selina.
The last time he saw her, she had just found out she was pregnant with their fourth child.
“She told me she was feeling symptoms of pregnancy. She left for her home village two days later to visit her parents,” 36-year-old Minyatso said, standing in the doorway of their thatched-roof home in Kaseleka village, his daughters playing in the dirt yard outside.
“I was later told that she went to a traditional healer to seek abortion-induced drugs which killed her.”
Selina Black is among hundreds of women who die every year in Malawi as a result of the government’s restrictive abortion law, which only permits the procedure in cases where the woman’s life is at risk. Obtaining an abortion for any other reason is punishable by seven to 14 years in prison; while people supplying drugs or instruments to procure abortion can face three years in jail.
In Malawi, home to one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, unsafe abortion is estimated to account for 6%-18% of all maternal deaths, according to research conducted by Guttmacher Institute, a US-based reproductive rights think tank, and the Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Malawi College of Medicine.
Entrance to maternity ward at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre.

But a draft “Termination of Pregnancy” bill is seeking to loosen the country’s 157-year-old law. If approved, the bill would allow an abortion when the pregnancy threatens the physical or mental health of the woman, fetal abnormalities affect the life of the baby, or in cases of rape, incest and defilement.
The bill, which is currently being scrutinized by Cabinet ministers before it moves to Parliament for debate, has faced strong resistance from influential religious bodies in the country. About 81% of Malawi’s population is Christian, according to a 2014 national survey.
In the three years that have passed since the draft bill was first introduced thousands more women have resorted to risky clandestine abortions — 141,000 in 2015 alone, according to the Guttmacher report.
Minyatso says he was devastated when he heard that Selina was dead. The couple were still contemplating whether they would keep the baby, and he believes Selina’s decision to go ahead with the abortion was influenced by other family members.
Minyatso with his children at their home in Kaseleka.

“I don’t have any plan to marry again,” Minyatso, who struggles to work as a farmer and tend to his young family, said. “I will never find a woman who will take care of the children as Selina did.”
Chrispine Sibande, a human rights lawyer and former coordinator for the Coalition for Prevention of Unsafe Abortion (an abortion rights body comprising 45 health rights organizations lobbying for liberalized laws), says the draft abortion bill would allow women like Selina Black to access legal abortion safely.
“The 1861 law, under section 243 of the penal code, says abortion can only be performed by a skilled person through operation. Now you and me would ask ‘who is this skilled person’? So the new law clarifies that,” he said, underlining that while the current law allows abortion to save the life of the mother, the language is unclear.
In the absence of legal routes, many women seeking abortion in Malawi, like Selina Black, turn to traditional healers.
A traditional healer shows some of the abortion-inducing concoctions.

A healer, who asked not to be identified for fear of being arrested, said he has been providing abortion services to women since he started his trade a decade ago.
“I assist these women because they are currently desperate,” he said, adding that doing so is against the constitution of the International Traditional Medicine Council of Malawi, a group of accredited traditional healers of which he is member.
He gives the women a concoction of what he calls “abortion-inducing” herbs.
“But still I advise my clients to immediately seek medical help if they notice any serious complications,” he explains.
Chisale Mhango an obstetrician at Malawi’s largest referral health facility, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, says he receives between 20 and 30 patients with post-abortion complications every day.
“The complications include injury to reproductive health organs because some of them use sticks to poke [the fetus] so that they can cause an abortion. And through that, they get infection which is a serious problem that would lead to things like surgery that may require removing the womb. And there is hemorrhage,” he said.
Mhango says the post abortion care is also costly for the national health system.
“In 2015, the studies suggested that we were spending more than $2 million just to manage complications of unsafe abortion and yet the Ministry of Health budget is not increasing,” he said. One recent report estimated that the Malawi government spends closer to $1 million annually on post-abortion care.
Gynecologist Dr. Mhango in his office at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre.

“I was rushed to the hospital,” Kawala, a 46-year-old single mother of of three, said. “There, the doctors said I was losing a lot of blood because my uterus had burst and they had to remove it.”
A year after she lost her uterus, her husband left her.
“He said he wanted a wife who could give him another child. He left for good, and now, he has married another woman,” Kawala said.
Margret Kawala preparing porridge at her home.

Though she struggles to feed her three children, and wishes she had the help of a partner, Kawala says she still feels lucky. Many other women in her area have died as a result of unsafe abortions.
“I have nothing to hide. That’s why I speak openly about my situation. I want government authorities to know the gravity of harm that restrictive abortion laws have caused to women,” Kawala said.
Still, parliamentarians are noncommittal about their position on the draft bill, and refer to their religion when discussing its merits.
Aisha Mambo of Mangochi-Nkungulu Constituency said she wouldn’t comment until she had scrutinized the final bill: “And I will base my position on what my religion says about abortion because I can’t act against the teachings of my religion.”
Back in Malawi’s largest referral health facility, Mhango says the issue has nothing to do with religion.
“The debate is not about whether abortion is good or not,” Mhango said, adding that the law needs to change if it can’t be properly enforced.
“The debate is women are dying in increasing numbers in spite of the fact that there is a law in this country specifically to prevent women dying from unsafe abortion when their lives are in danger.”
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/26/health/malawi-abortion-law-as-equals-africa-intl/index.html