“I remember one woman who arrived and asked, ‘Is this the clinic?’ And we were like, ‘What clinic?’”

Lizy and the woman who helped her to end her pregnancy met at a Starbucks in León, the largest city in the central Mexican state of Guanajuato. Then a 20-year-old social-work student with curly hair and a heart-shaped face, Lizy, which is a nickname we’ve used to help protect her identity, felt nervous about discussing her pregnancy in such a public place. She was afraid she could be jailed for even considering an abortion, which is a crime in most cases in the heavily Catholic and conservative state. Enrolled in an exchange program in a city where she knew few people, she had no way to make the hours-long trip to Mexico City, the only place where abortion was legal at the time. She and her partner felt hopeless. “We were dying from fear, really, we were two frightened children,” she said later, seated in a park in her home city of Guadalajara. Finally, she had confided in a professor who told her about Rosalía.

Rosalía Cruz Sánchez had chosen the location for the meeting. Her organization, Las Libres, favors in-person meetings in public settings as a way to show people that abortion is normal and should be discussed in the open. Lizy was grateful that Rosalía didn’t ask her to explain why she wanted an abortion; she only asked whether she had made her decision. Then in a quiet but clear voice, she explained how to take a regimen of misoprostol, an ulcer medication available over the counter in Mexico that is also part of the FDA-approved protocol for medication abortion used in the United States. “She told me: Here’s how to do it, and here’s my number; you can call me at one in the morning or two in the morning, and I’m going to listen to you,” Lizy remembered.

After buying the pills at Walmart, Lizy placed four of the chalky tablets under her tongue and began to bleed. She called Rosalía to give her an update. After the second dose, her symptoms increased: a feverish chill, vomiting, and diarrhea. Rosalía reassured her that this was normal. Finally, Lizy went to the bathroom and saw a little gray mass on her pad. She touched it and felt a wave of relief.

Lizy self-managed her own abortion with the help of the activist group Las Libres. Amy Littlefield and Laura Gottesdiener

Las Libres is one of dozens of groups across Mexico that help people induce their own abortions. Some, including Las Libres, provide the pills directly when they can. Others offer instructions and around-the-clock counseling, fielding questions about how much bleeding is safe, how to dispose of pregnancy tissue, and, in rare cases of complications, how to speak to hospital staff without risking imprisonment. In their public life, these activists are students and newspaper editors, secretaries and teachers, office workers and doctors. The people they accompany are teenagers and college students, mothers and grandmothers, indigenous people and government officials. The activists use the word “accompaniment” to describe the work of being with people during an abortion—whether they are helping someone travel to Mexico City or texting with someone like Lizy in the middle of the night. This quiet and often clandestine work has not only helped countless people survive in a landscape of restricted access. It has also fueled a historic mobilization demanding the legalization of abortion in one of the world’s most Catholic countries. In a series of landmark victories for this “Green Tide” movement, the state of Oaxaca legalized abortion in September 2019, and the lower house of Congress recently passed federal legislation that could grant amnesty to women jailed for abortions.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has moved swiftly in the opposite direction. As states emboldened by the two Trump nominees on the Supreme Court have passed increasingly extreme restrictions, interest in self-managed abortion has surged. Even before President Trump’s election, grassroots groups in the U.S. quietly disseminated instructions and pills in states where laws have shuttered clinics and rendered abortion inaccessible for many people. As in Mexico, the work is legally risky in the U.S., where abortion-inducing medications are heavily regulated and advocates say at least 21 people have been arrested for self-induced abortions since 1973. The group Aid Access, which says it prescribed medication abortions over the internet to more than 7,000 women in the U.S. between March 2018 and August 2019, sued the Food and Drug Administration last year for seizing some of its shipments and blocking payments. In another case, a New York City woman who sold abortion pills was indicted on federal conspiracy and drug charges last year. As the burgeoning self-managed abortion movement here braces for a Supreme Court decision that could close even more clinics, U.S. activists are learning from their counterparts in Mexico and from the long history of self-managed abortion in Latin America.


Many sources trace the history of self-managed medication abortion to the 1980s in Brazil, when pharmacies began selling misoprostol with the warning that it could cause a miscarriage. It didn’t take long for women to figure out they could use the pills to induce abortions. Studies estimated that hundreds of thousands used the pills to circumvent the country’s abortion ban before Brazil restricted sales in 1991. Still, the underground use of misoprostol to self-induce abortions spread throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, where more than 97 percent of reproductive-age women live in countries with restrictive abortion laws.

In the Mexican state of Guanajuato, Las Libres never intended to become Mexico’s most high-profile and brazen accompaniment group. In 2000, Verónica Cruz, the founder of Las Libres, and a handful of her friends started talking about creating a feminist organization that would offer sexual education. “We wanted to create a small organization, nothing scandalous,” Cruz said. She and the other initial members of Las Libres had all engaged in activism and feminist work for years. Cruz, an energetic woman with a warm smile and a commanding presence, began her political organizing in elementary school, when she mobilized her classmates to stage plays to raise money for poorer children.

But their plans changed when Guanajuato state lawmakers tried to revoke rape survivors’ right to an abortion—which is the only exception to abortion bans recognized by all Mexican states. “We said, ‘They are crazy! We’re not going to allow this,’” Cruz explained. The idea of a small and low-profile organization was dashed; Las Libres rapidly mobilized massive protests that attracted international media attention and helped force the governor to veto the anti-abortion legislation.

But, in Mexico—as in the U.S.—there’s often a wide gap between reproductive rights under the law and actual access to abortion, particularly in highly conservative states like Guanajuato. So, Las Libres’ members began knocking on the doors of medical offices to find doctors willing to carry out the procedure. Their aim: to ensure that every person in the state who sought an abortion under the rape exception could, in fact, obtain one. One of the doctors they met was a gynecologist, who said she would not only perform the abortions herself, but that she would also show Las Libres members how to induce an abortion with misoprostol on their own.

As the news of the group’s activities spread, women flocked to Las Libres’ office asking for help accessing an abortion. “I remember one woman who arrived and asked, ‘Is this the clinic?’ And we were like, ‘What clinic?’” said Rosalía Cruz Sánchez.

Some of these women who came to Las Libres had been raped, but many wanted to end pregnancies for other reasons. “We said to ourselves, ‘It’s logical that if the medicine works for rape victims, it must also work for women who are not victims of rape, right?’” recounted Cruz. That’s when they started offering abortion accompaniment to everyone.

Since then, Las Libres estimates it has helped 10,000 women, some of whose numbers are saved on Rosalía Cruz Sánchez’s cell phone under names like “Acompañamiento 567,” the Spanish word for accompaniment. The group has continued to work in public, even as many Mexican states sought to further restrict abortion access as part of a backlash that followed Mexico City’s decision to legalize abortion in 2007. “People always ask me, ‘Aren’t you worried that your telephone is tapped?’ And I say, ‘Of course my phone is tapped—and isn’t it great that whoever is listening is learning about medical abortions?’” joked Verónica Cruz.

Despite its public profile, or perhaps because of the protection afforded by it, Las Libres has never been targeted by law enforcement. It argues that providing publicly available information about misoprostol to people who manage their own abortions is not illegal. But Las Libres is well acquainted with the Mexican justice system. Over the years, it’s helped free multiple women who were jailed on suspicion of having an abortion. “We’re the organization that best knows how to defend women who have been criminalized,” said Cruz. “And for that reason, we know how to beat the system.” In fact, Cruz said the group would welcome a legal case against it because that would allow it to mount an argument that could lead to the decriminalization of abortion across Mexico. “We have our legal strategy prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” she said.

Many of Mexico’s accompaniment groups, however, operate in the shadows. (For that reason, we’ve withheld last names or used pseudonyms upon request.) Sofía, a philosophy student in her early twenties in Aguascalientes, is part of an anonymous online team that supports four or five women through their abortions every single day across Mexico and other parts of Latin America. She joined after the group’s founder—who had started by simply offering advice to her close friends—found herself so inundated with requests that she needed help. Sofía says the goal is to offer support to low-income women who cannot afford to travel to Mexico City for an abortion and may be forced to resort to unsafe measures. “The refrain that’s often repeated in Mexico is that the rich girls get abortions and the poor girls die,” she said. Members of the team have received rape and death threats and take care to conceal their identities. “We know that what we do makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and this puts us in danger,” she said.

Fernanda, a secretary who runs a website that sells abortion pills, also keeps her identity hidden as she counsels people through their at-home abortions and ships misoprostol pills across the country concealed inside magazines and newspapers as if they were ordinary documents. Over a decade ago, she had an unwanted pregnancy during college and struggled to find a source for the pills that she felt confident was safe. A few months after her self-induced abortion, a friend needed one too. “I told her what my experience was like and where I got the medication,” Fernanda recalled. “And from there the word spread, first to another friend, then to the friend of a friend, then to a cousin, and a neighbor. The news traveled quite fast.”


Misoprostol is widely available over the counter in Mexico. It’s usually sold in 28-pill packages, which is typically enough to end multiple pregnancies. “This is how some of the first accompaniment networks were formed: Women passed the pills between each other,” said Verónica Cruz. Yet with an average of one person reported to authorities every day for the crime of abortion in Mexico, many people eschew pharmacies and opt for street markets or websites instead. In Guadalajara, for example, a former car salesman named Lalo hawks exorbitantly priced misoprostol in an area well known for clandestine drug sales. Some peddlers charge even more, he adds, because they know women will pay. The problem with the black market, however, is that you never quite know what you’ll get. An advertising agency assistant named Lorena says she once paid a website $70 for eight pills that ended up being confectioners’ sugar. The black market for surgical abortions, meanwhile, can be more dangerous. Another woman, named Magda, says she once fled an illegal clinic after the doctor told her boyfriend that Magda might bleed to death during the procedure: “My boyfriend felt like the doctor had said, ‘Well, she could die, but nothing’s going to happen to me.’”

Social worker Ana Mares’s experience with a self-induced abortion inspired her to fight for other women’s reproductive rights.Meghan Dhaliwal

With appropriate support and information, however, experts say that self-managed medication abortions are extremely safe. And for some of the women who undergo them, the process can be a transformative experience that spurs them to activism. Ana Mares, a 27-year-old social worker, was raised by a catechist mother and grew up believing that abortion was the worst of all sins. But when Mares became pregnant as a university student, she knew she wasn’t ready to have a child. She searched online for help but instead ended up at the offices of an anti-choice group, whose members refused to let her leave the building until she threatened to call the police. She later bought abortion pills at a street market. “Instead of blaming myself and feeling like a victim,” she said, “I realized that these types of things happen, and will continue happening, precisely because women are second-class citizens, because they control our bodies, and because religion is in Mexico and our culture down to our veins.” Mares joined a feminist organization and graduated with a degree in social work. She now works with accompaniment groups to offer psychological and emotional support to people during their own extra-legal abortions.

It’s this type of political shift that Las Libres seeks to inspire during accompaniments. The activists always ask women two questions: whether they are sure they want an abortion and what they think of abortion. The latter offers Las Libres members an opportunity to try to dispel the procedure’s deeply ingrained religious and social stigma. “We want every woman we accompany to mobilize for the decriminalization of abortion for everyone,” said Verónica Cruz. That’s because abortion accompaniment groups, no matter how successful, are not a replacement for legalized abortion across Mexico and Latin America. “We can accompany five or ten thousand women. But in every country, there are at least four hundred or five hundred or nine hundred thousand abortions each year,” she said. “We’re never going to reach that.”

Hundreds of women wearing green handkerchiefs and T-shirts fill the streets of Guadalajara on International Safe Abortion Day on September 28, 2018. Amy Littlefield and Laura Gottesdiener

Months after her abortion, Lizy joined a group of hundreds of women wearing green handkerchiefs and T-shirts who filled the streets of Guadalajara to demand legalization of abortion. She gripped a banner that read, “Sister, get angry!” as they marched. “I don’t want other women to go through what I went through,” she said. Even though her abortion itself was successful, afterward she had bleeding and cramps for weeks but was too afraid to go to a doctor. Even with Rosalía’s support, the fear was still there. “I want there to be comprehensive medical care; I want it to be legal and for us not to be criminalized, so we’re not afraid to go to a gynecologist and worry we could end up in jail.”

Several weeks after the march, the feminist collective Lizy had joined put out a call for help with an unexpected request for accompaniment. An uninsured woman living in Texas needed an abortion, and she was having trouble accessing one. Lizy was surprised to learn that in Texas, where a medication abortion cost hundreds of dollars, a state law required most patients to have an ultrasound 24 hours before the procedure, during which a provider had to make any fetal cardiac activity audible and display and describe the image. “I read that abortion is legal in the United States, but I didn’t know there were these kinds of restrictions,” Lizy said. “It’s like it’s not actually legal at all.”

This reporting was supported by the International Women’s Media Foundation as part of the Adelante Latin American Reporting Initiative.

Source: https://newrepublic.com/article/156667/radical-future-self-managed-abortion-already

States have largely relied on nullification to uphold white supremacist and patriarchal systems.

If conservatives spent the decades since Roe v. Wade chiseling away at abortion access, they’re now going for the jugular with these bills.
Shutterstock

Since the start of the new year, anti-choice state legislators have introduced bills to abolish abortion in their states by invalidating—or nullifying—federal law. If the decades since Roe v. Wade were about chiseling away at abortion access, these bills are now going for the jugular.

Abortion rights are being attacked on a federal level in the June Medical Services v. Russo U.S. Supreme Court case. Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers are attempting to criminalize abortion in their states—domestic terrorist Washington Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley) of Washington and Rep. Heather Scott (R-Blanchard) of Idaho who’s white nationalists are trying for the second time—by combining fetal personhood with the Confederate-era theory of nullification.

Bills like HB 2154 in Washington, HB 1089 in Indiana, HB 361 in Idaho, SB 13 in Oklahoma, and HB 1075 in Colorado have all been introduced in the first 60 days of this year seeking to override Roe. These nullification bills can look like pure political theater as they have little legal foundation—but they’re actually deviously clever. Because neither access to abortion nor a definition of life is explicitly referenced in the U.S. Constitution or federal law, the sponsors of these bills make their case that states have the power to legislate both, per the Tenth Amendment‘s granting of state authority.

Nullification as a tactic is not newDavid S. Cohen, an associate professor at Drexel University and a gender and constitutional law expert who’s contributed to Rewire.News, said that Republican lawmakers who have proposed these recent bills are “keeping the company of the worst in this country’s history in terms of slavery and segregation.”

As far back as the Founding Fathers, some state lawmakers have fought for states’ rights to decide what is constitutionally valid within their state’s borders. States have largely relied on nullification to uphold white supremacist and patriarchal systems. Leading up to the Civil War, Southern state lawmakers used the argument of nullification to try to kick Native Americans off their land, to refuse to enforce federal tariffs, and secede from the Union. Southern states also used the nullification argument in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education in an attempt to avoid racially integrating schools.

So how did these tactics make a comeback? Over the last decade, alongside the rise of the Tea Party movement, nullification enthusiasts have organized in states’ rights groups like the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC), as well as far-right extremist groups like Oath Keepers. Since its formation in 2007, TAC has emerged as the thought leader on modern-day applications of nullification. The group’s model legislation has informed recent nullification bills, like those introduced during the multistate legislative campaign to reject the Affordable Care Act, and the ongoing wave of bills to thwart federal gun regulations.

For these self-described tenthers, nullification acts as a cudgel against any federal law they don’t want to uphold, judicial review and federal supremacy be damned.

To apply nullification to abortion regulations, state lawmakers have to get around the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled access to abortion as a constitutional right with Roe v. Wade.

Each of the five bills introduced this year do so in the following ways:

  1. assert that states have a compelling interest in protecting the right to life of the unborn;
  2. provide that the life of unborn begins at conception;
  3. make a Tenth Amendment claim to deem any federal law that contradicts what is written in the bill as “null, void, and unenforceable”; and
  4. provide some sort of threat of retaliation should the federal government choose to enforce federal law in those states.

“It’s a really important strategy for them,” Jessica Mason PiekloRewire.News‘ vice president of law and the courts, said. “In order to get around abortion rights precedent, these bills have to do a few things… They have to clearly assert a source of state power, [show that the state] has a compelling interest [in passing the law], and that the restriction has to substantially further that compelling interest… and still pass that undue burden test.”

The level of constitutional scrutiny for abortion regulations has been whittled down from “strict scrutiny” in Roe, to “compelling scrutiny” and an “undue burden” test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and then Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. By using the nullification language and asserting Tenth Amendment authority, “these laws are trying to … restart that conversation and change the terms of it,” Mason Pieklo said. Under these new terms, “abortion isn’t a fundamental right, so states only need a rational basis—not a compelling interest—to legislate around it. The point of these laws is to say … the federal laws don’t apply here,” she added.

Yasmine Ergas, director of the gender and public policy specialization at Columbia University, described the novelty of these bills like this: “In the third trimester, there’s a compelling state interest in the life of the fetus. But that trimester framework gets changed in Casey. Nonetheless, women’s rights are predominant,” and the undue burden test, if applied to these bills, would remain the same, “although what [these bills are] saying is, ‘We don’t care about your test.’”

Even if the state lawmakers concede that their bills are in fact subject to the type of constitutional scrutiny determined by the Court, they maintain they “have a compelling interest in litigating on behalf of the unborn,” according to Pieklo Mason.

But how can a state assert a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn under the 14th Amendment when neither the Court nor federal law has agreed that a fertilized egg is a person? Nullification, of course.

While anti-choice lawmakers have long claimed that they must protect the inalienable rights of the “unborn” from the time of conception via fetal personhood bills, tenthers assert that state lawmakers get to define what constitutes a “person.”

Oklahoma’s SB 13 states that “a living human child, from the moment of fertilization… is entitled to the same rights, powers, privileges, justice and protections as … any other human person.” Idaho’s HB 361 aims to make abortion illegal, “regardless of any contrary or conflicting federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, or court decisions.”

Sometimes, the bills go even further and criminalize people who infringe on the rights of fetuses they deem as people. Indiana’s HB 1089 goes as far as to threaten federal agents who enforce the Constitution within Indiana’s borders: “A federal officer or agent who arrests any Indiana government official for compliance with this article … shall be subject to arrest by Indiana law enforcement.”

We have already seen states criminalize pregnant individuals—disproportionately women of color—who experience pregnancy loss. The state lawmakers who want to use nullification and fetal personhood to ban abortion want to prioritize the rights of a fertilized egg over the pregnant person carrying it.

“Women have a right to life, and a right to health … doesn’t life imply a certain amount of health?” Ergas said. “Certainly life is not simply a positive heartbeat.”

If these bills became law, the only recourse for pregnant individuals in those states would be federal law enforcement intervention, which is exceedingly unlikely given the current state of our federal executive and judicial branches.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2020/03/09/anti-choice-state-lawmakers-want-to-criminalize-abortion-through-nullification/

Unnecessary restrictions on abortion pose undue burden to women's constitutionality

© Greg Nash

This week the Supreme Court for the second time in four years considered a case that will national implications for abortion providers and their patients. The core question — whether state laws that impose medically unnecessary restrictions on clinics and force them to shut down pose an undue burden to the constitutional right to abortion.

In 2016, it was an independent abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health that initially took this fight from Texas to the highest court in the nation. With this year’s case — June Medical Services v. Russ — it’s an independent abortion clinic Hope Medical Group for Women going to bat to protect abortion access for the entire country.

Whether it’s fighting for their patients in local communities, state legislatures, or all the way to the Supreme Court, independent abortion providers — or, “indies” as so many of us lovingly refer them — have been taking on these fights for years as attacks targeting them and their patients continue to ramp up.

Independent abortion providers in Georgia fought back tirelessly last year against that state’s six-week ban. Year after year, in addition to serving their state as the only abortion provider in Kentucky, EMW Women’s Surgical Center is also fighting for their patients in court, challenging the onslaught of state restrictions intended to push care out of reach entirely.

In Ohio, where clinics have been closing at an alarming rate for the last decade, anti-abortion extremists regularly harass patients and staff. When protesters dramatically vandalized Preterm, an independent provider in Cleveland, the community rallied around the clinic and its staff, showing an outpouring of love and support amid the threats.

And although these providers are as resilient and courageous as ever, the constant and persistent extremism they face to protect our basic human rights feels particularly salient in this current moment.

Since 1973 when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, politicians have been relentless in attacking the constitutional right to abortion. Though abortion remains legal in all 50 states, nearly 1,200 laws restricting abortion rights have been enacted on the state and federal levels: more than a third of these laws have been enacted in the seven years between 2011 and 2018 alone. Unsurprisingly, many of these laws have targeted clinics specifically, especially in the South and Midwest.

Less often discussed but equally important is the fact that independent clinics and their patients are disproportionately impacted by these attacks. Across the U.S., independent clinics provide the majority of abortion care — providing care to three out of five people who have abortions — but they continue to close at alarmingly high rates. Since 2012, the number of independent clinics has declined by more than 32 percent, and the ones that remain operate in some of the most politically hostile regions in the country.

In four of the six states with just one abortion clinic remaining, that last clinic is independent, and providers are often targeted by the most aggressive protesters and anti-abortion legislation in the nation.

Clinic closures are often the result of anti-choice legislation that imposes medically unnecessary regulations on abortion clinics, many of which lack the resources to meet these onerous requirements.

However, these regulations — as well as the extremist legislators who impose them — ignore the fact that abortion is safe, and as clinics close, more and more patients are forced to travel outside of their communities for care, often taking on additional expenses like hotel stays and transportation.

In my almost five years as executive director of the Abortion Care Network, over and over, I’ve watched independent providers across the country rise to the challenge. When the stakes are high and the political landscape is stacked against them, indies stand their ground and refuse to let anything stop them from putting their patients first.

Independent clinics play an integral role in ensuring everyone has access to the reproductive health care they need to thrive and be healthy and to make the choices that are right for them and their families.

Now is the time we all must show appreciation for abortion providers. Reach out to the clinic in your local community. Volunteer, or support in whatever way is needed. Be an advocate for providers and patients as the threats to abortion access escalate.

Source: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/486188-unnecessary-restrictions-on-abortion-pose-undue-burden-to-womens?fbclid=IwAR1Bk4vY_fhZLyLyNJX-_ltHGgqvrcosxmeI2GbHARKRmclcNO99A15mia8

A longtime Minnesota legislator was one of many members of Congress to throw their support behind Joe Biden this week.

In February, Biden received endorsements from a Louisiana state senator who voted for a near-total abortion ban and a Texas lawmaker who voted to fund a program run by anti-choice activists. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Longtime abortion rights opponent backs Biden 

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), among the last anti-choice Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, this week endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for the Democratic presidential nominee, calling him “a strong voice for rural America in the White House.”

Last April, Peterson was one of three House Democrats to join Republicans in pushing for a vote on legislation based on the myth that abortion providers routinely commit infanticide during “failed” abortions. He has the backing of Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), a group that supports anti-choice Democrats.

Peterson, who represents a part of rural Minnesota that’s solidly Republican, also opposed the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, and later voted against both articles of impeachment.

Peterson, a congressman since 1991, is the latest anti-choice legislator to back Biden’s presidential campaign. In February, Biden received endorsements from a Louisiana state senator who voted for a near-total abortion ban and a Texas lawmaker who voted to fund a program run by anti-choice activists.

This week, Biden also received a number of endorsements from pro-choice legislators, including U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), a pro-choice stalwart.

How Super Tuesday candidates fared among people of color, LGBTQ people

Exit polling from Super Tuesday states showed voters of color were largely split between Biden and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who won 513 and 435 delegates, respectively, in Tuesday’s primaries.

Fifty-eight percent of Black voters supported Biden on Super Tuesday, while 17 percent backed Sanders, according to exit data based on median support complied by the Washington Post. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who ended her presidential bid on Thursday, received 5 percent of the vote from voters who are Black. Biden dominated among voters who named race relations their top issue.

Sanders won 35 percent of the vote from people who are Latino on Super Tuesday, 9 points higher than Biden’s share. Forty-two percent of Asian voters backed Sanders, and 17 percent voted for Biden.

Biden won the largest share of voters who identified as female in the exit poll, with 37 percent. Sanders drew 25 percent, and 15 percent voted for Warren.

While exit poll data from LGBT voters wasn’t available on a national scale, state-by-state statistics showed LGBT voters supported Sanders in large numbers. In Texas, they backed Sanders over Biden, 49 percent to 21 percent, according to exit polling compiled by the New York Times. Sanders won 36 percent of the vote from LGBT voters in California’s primary to Biden’s 16 percent.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2020/03/06/biden-gets-support-from-one-of-the-last-anti-choice-congressional-democrats-campaign-week-in-review/

Virginia’s General Assembly passed a bill that repealed many of the State’s restrictions on abortion on Wednesday.

House Bill 980, also known as the Reproductive Health Protection Act, received final passage from the House of Delegates and was sent to Governor Ralph Northam for final approval on Wednesday. HB 980, which had initially passed the House of Delegates on a 52-45 vote, passed the Senate through Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax’s tie-breaking vote after it had been amended, and, on Wednesday, received final passage after the House of delegates adopted the Senate’s amendments.

The bill effectively revokes many of Virginia’s restrictions on abortion. It expands who can perform first trimester abortions by allowing physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives to perform them and removes the 24-hour mandatory waiting period imposed on women before getting an abortion. It also removes the requirement that women receive an ultrasound and counseling before getting an abortion.

Driven by Virginia’s democrats, the bill seems to be the lawmakers’ direct response to the many cases challenging Virginia’s laws on abortion.

Moreover, the General Assembly’s decision to pass the bill comes at a time when pro-choice groups are worried about the possibility that the US Supreme Court could overturn or significantly repeal Roe v. Wade, a 1973 case which established that the right to abort fell within a woman’s fundamental right of privacy and that a State’s undue restrictions on that right were unconstitutional .

Pro-choice advocates have praised the passage of the bill. As Senator Jennifer McClellan, sponsor of a similar bill originating in the Senate, said: “if ever there was a time to protect a woman’s bodily autonomy, that time is now.”

Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, have expressed their disapproval for the bill, arguing that the bill has lowered the standard of care and is thus dangerous for women.

Source: https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/02/virginia-lawmakers-pass-bill-repealing-abortion-restrictions/

Buying abortion pills online can be the most affordable way to get care. Waiting for them can be agony.

Tara* has health insurance. Her health insurance even covers abortion—something of a rarity, considering that 11 states have laws restricting coverage of the procedure in private insurance plans, and 26 states restrict coverage in plans sold under the Affordable Care Act.

But when she found out she was pregnant, she realized she still wouldn’t be able to afford the cost of an in-clinic abortion: Since she hadn’t met her $1,500 deductible, she would have to pay for the entire procedure out of pocket, which would cost several hundred dollars.

“On paper I look like someone who could afford an abortion, which is weird to say. I make money, but I have to pay for rent, car payments, student loans, and health insurance—I don’t have the expendable income to just drop $600,” Tara told VICE.

She thought it over for a week—she could miss a car payment, or pay her rent late, but neither of these options were acceptable to her. Then she remembered she had read about Aid Access, a website run by a doctor based in the Netherlands who prescribes abortion pills for just $90. After one last attempt to scrape together the funds for an in-clinic procedure, she contacted the site.

Buying pills through Aid Access is designed to be simple and straightforward: First, Rebecca Gomperts, the doctor who started the service, has a consultation with U.S. patients over email to make sure they’re eligible to use the method. Then she writes a prescription for the pills, which patients email to a pharmacy she works with in India. Gomperts gives her patients instructions for how to use the medication, and when the pills come in the mail, they can take them at their convenience—but typically only during the first trimester. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved medication abortion for use up to 10 weeks in pregnancy.

Gomperts started Aid Access to help people overcome the many obstacles to abortion care in the U.S., considering it her duty as a doctor to help people access the procedure. But because of the FDA’s restrictions on mifepristone, one of two drugs found in the abortion pill regimen, the service Aid Access provides is considered a violation of federal law, which is why Gomperts has an international—not a U.S.-based—pharmacy ship the pills. That means the drugs must go through U.S. Customs, which can delay them for an unpredictable amount of time: Some people receive their package in just a few days, but others may wait weeks for theirs to arrive. (Customs did not return VICE’s multiple requests for comment about whether it is targeting packages from Aid Access.)

Tara belonged to the latter group: She watched the medication sit in Customs for 16 days, an agonizing period of time during which she was growing more worried about whether she was still going to be able to end her pregnancy using the method she wanted.

“Those were the longest 16 days of my life,” she said.

Aid Access is currently considered the most reputable resource for self-managing an abortion. While there are several sites where people can buy abortion pills online, Aid Access is the most affordable—other websites charge anywhere between $115 to $430—and the only one operated by a licensed physician. On Plan C, a website that ranks online abortion pill retailers in a “report card,” Aid Access is the only site to receive an A.

One online abortion support group is filled with people’s accounts of using Gomperts’ service: Anyone who posts about not being able to access a clinic, be it for reasons of cost or distance, can expect to receive at least one response recommending Aid Access. The experiences detailed in this group are overwhelmingly positive. (VICE is not including the names of the online forums so as not to make them a target for shuttering.)

But while Aid Access may be the best option for people who find themselves needing—or preferring—to end their pregnancies on their own, the restrictions on mifepristone can put them in an impossible situation.

While three women VICE spoke to who used Aid Access were all ultimately successful in self-managing their abortions with pills from the site, some women online have described panicking about the wait time for the pills and going to a clinic after all, even if they still couldn’t afford it. And others—including one of the women in this story—said that they had used the abortion pills past the recommended time frame due to shipping delays.

The women who told VICE about using Aid Access said they don’t have any regrets about choosing the service, but their experiences were still characterized by feelings of stress and anxiety when days of waiting for a package of pills to arrive turned into weeks.

“Those were the longest 16 days of my life.”

This is not a situation of Gomperts’ making; rather it is the result of the many restrictions on medication abortion, which doctors and reproductive health experts say are medically unnecessary.

“You’re in quite the nerve-wracking situation if you don’t find out you’re pregnant until six or seven weeks, and that’s often around the time when someone who isn’t planning for a pregnancy will find out,” said Abigail Aiken, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who studies self-managed abortion. “If you have to wait three weeks for pills, you risk bumping up against that [10-week] cut-off point.”

Taking abortion pills past 10 weeks of pregnancy—and especially past 13 weeks—can mean heavier bleeding and raise the chances of an incomplete abortion, requiring patients to seek medical care afterward. Though such cases are rare, these caveats make the wait for abortion pills to arrive in the mail feel like a race against the clock.

“On top of the stress and anxiety of dealing with a pregnancy that’s not wanted, you have the added stress and anxiety of getting the pills,” Aiken said, not just because patients want to end the pregnancy as quickly as they can, but because they want to do it in the safest way possible.

Gomperts warns patients about the potential wait time for the pills: In the first email she sends people who request pills from her, she estimates the package will take seven to 21 days to arrive, and informs them that there is no faster shipping method available. She also urges patients to make their decision about whether they want to move forward with Aid Access as soon as possible, since she only treats patients who are less than nine weeks pregnant.

When Alex, who asked that VICE withhold her last name as a legal precaution, ordered abortion pills through Aid Access, she was about four weeks and five days along. Had the medication arrived in the estimated seven to 21 days, she would have been well within the 10-week window. But instead, her package remained in Customs for a full month; Gomperts ended up writing her a second prescription for the pills, but the first package arrived sooner: Alex took the pills when she was nine weeks and three days pregnant.

“I’d had a medication abortion once before with a clinic, but I was only about five weeks along at that time,” Alex said. “So I was kind of nervous [this time] because even though they say you can take the pills up to 13 weeks, things can get more complicated after the 10th week, and I didn’t want to complicate things.”

If the pills hadn’t come by the 13-week mark, Alex said she would have used the advance on her tax return to pay for an in-clinic procedure, even though she had been saving the money for a birthday gift for her three-year-old son.

“I had promised my son that we would redecorate his bedroom for his birthday,” she said. “It made me upset to think that I wouldn’t be able to do that, but I knew I wouldn’t be able to raise another kid by myself.”

Once patients have decided to end their pregnancy with Aid Access, they’re committed to seeing it through: Their back-up plans—like paying rent late in order to afford an in-clinic abortion—aren’t satisfactory to them because they weren’t satisfactory in the first place.

Even though Tara didn’t receive her pills until the 11-week mark, she was undeterred by the warnings about taking the pills past 10 weeks. She researched medication abortion past 10 weeks, looked up the signs of infection, and read about the experiences of other people who had been in a similar situation. She knew if she had any complications to just tell doctors that she had a miscarriage, to avoid possible criminalization for self-inducing an abortion.

“I was prepared for the worst outcome,” she continued. “I couldn’t have a baby so there wasn’t any other choice—no matter how long Customs made me wait I wasn’t having this baby and I didn’t have $600 to pay the clinic.”

Women like Tara and Alex face a difficult choice: wait an indeterminate amount of time for abortion pills to come in the mail, or find a way to get the pills from a clinic and suffer the financial consequences.

“I couldn’t have a baby so there wasn’t any other choice—no matter how long Customs made me wait I wasn’t having this baby and I didn’t have $600 to pay the clinic.”

There are other possibilities. Some of the sites that appear on Plan C’s report card have much faster ship times because they operate as online pharmacies rather than full-scale telemedicine services like Aid Access that require a consult. And because they sometimes ship from within the U.S.—flouting FDA rules—there’s no Customs checkpoint to hold up the packages. But pills from these pharmacies are more expensive, and don’t offer the comforts that come with having a licensed physician walk you through the process.

“It’s a bit of a trade off,” said Elisa Wells, the founder of Plan C. “Aid Access offers a really good price, physician support and excellent ongoing support in terms of instructions and answering questions. But there is this issue that the pills ship from overseas and they take longer to get to you. It’s not perfect, but people have to decide what’s important to them.”

Paige, who also asked VICE to withhold her last name, decided to make this compromise when contemplating how to end a recent pregnancy. The last time she’d gotten an abortion, she’d had a difficult time getting scheduled at a clinic, and ended up driving out of state for the procedure—when taking travel costs into account, she’d spent a total of $900.

“When it came to this recent pregnancy, I said, ‘Fuck that,’” Paige said. “I was learning more and more about self-managed abortion online and I didn’t to fight with the limitations of clinics again.”

She ordered the pills from one of the online pharmacies reviewed by Plan C for about $250, which she paid according to the instructions of a man who called her.

“It was kind of a sketchy work-around, but I knew it was legit from the Plan C report card, and [the pills] were in my mailbox in four days,” she said. “No waiting for weeks, no waiting for an appointment. Waiting in my experience was the worst part of being pregnant when you don’t want to be. The waiting is torture.”

Giving yourself a medication abortion doesn’t have to include weeks of waiting for a package to arrive in the mail, reproductive health advocates say: If the FDA lifted the restrictions on mifepristone, services like Gomperts’ would be free to operate in the U.S. And indeed some already are, through a clinical trial operating in 10 states, which exempts researchers from the FDA regulations.

“Aid Access really is demonstrating a way forward for safe and effective and convenient access to abortion services for the U.S.,” Wells said. “It’s a model we need to see made available here through regular medical channels so we don’t end up having the delay.”

In the end, neither Tara nor Alex had any complications passing their pregnancy—and they both described feeling happy and immensely relieved not to be pregnant anymore.

“It took a huge weight off of my shoulders,” Tara said. “I felt present for the first time in three weeks.”

Source: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/884v7b/aid-access-abortion-pills-stuck-in-customs?fbclid=IwAR2uScWtwpyHijEG8jiFFIAfAzSkHhWsGBe8CX9omi7xjR2i6C4cOlNEl5M

States that have seen clinic shutdown laws struck down could reintroduce the measures if Supreme Court conservatives side with Louisiana in June Medical Services v. Russo.

The Court will hear arguments Wednesday in June Medical Services, a case about the constitutionality of Louisiana Act 620, an admitting privileges law identical to the Texas law the Court struck down four years ago in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Louisiana in June Medical Services v. Russo could mean nightmare scenarios for abortion access not just in Louisiana, but in states across the country with Republican-held legislatures.

The Court will hear arguments Wednesday in June Medical Services, a case about the constitutionality of Louisiana Act 620, an admitting privileges law identical to the Texas law the Court struck down four years ago in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Even though the Court ruled in Whole Woman’s Health that there was no scientific evidence to support Texas’ claim that laws requiring abortion providers to maintain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital advance and protect the health of pregnant people, Louisiana lawmakers soldiered on. And because the Fifth Circuit went rogue and ignored the extensive lower court findings that the Louisiana law, like the Texas law, provide no medical benefit and that providers in Louisiana were finding it almost impossible to obtain admitting privileges, June Medical Services found itself in the curious position of petitioning the Supreme Court to strike down a law that the Court had already struck down.

Should conservative justices on the Court uphold Louisiana Act 620 by either limiting to Texas the principles set forth in Whole Woman’s Health or reversing Whole Woman’s Health outright—which is what congressional Republicans who filed an amicus brief have asked the Court to do—the repercussions will reverberate across the country. A decision in Louisiana’s favor would reduce what should be a broad ruling that admitting privileges laws are an undue burden—because, as the Court said in 2016, they have no health or safety benefit—to a state-by-state inquiry into whether a particular law in a particular state has any benefit and whether requiring physicians to comply with the law constitutes an undue burden.

And it will give anti-choice lawmakers across the United States the green light to resurrect admitting privileges laws that were either struck down by lower courts or abandoned in the wake of the 2016 Supreme Court decision. A ruling in favor of Louisiana would give anti-choice legislators an opportunity to make the case that in their state, admitting privileges laws provide medical benefits and the burdens on pregnant people are minimal.

But first, Louisiana needs to convince the court that the circumstances in Louisiana are different than those that prompted the Court to strike down Texas’ law four years ago.

In order to skirt the ruling in Whole Woman’s Health, attorneys for Louisiana are arguing that those factual findings are limited to Texas and have no bearing in Louisiana. Just because the Court found that HB 2 burdened abortion rights in Texas, they argue, doesn’t necessarily mean that Act 620 burdens abortion rights in Louisiana.

Sure, the laws are identical and, sure, lawmakers in Louisiana passed Act 620 because they saw how effective HB 2 was in closing clinics in Texas, but what does that matter? The abortion rights landscapes in Texas and Louisiana are different and, according to Louisiana’s attorneys, the impact of HB 2 in Texas says nothing about the impact of Act 620 in Louisiana. (In one respect, Louisiana’s attorneys are right: The abortion rights landscape in Louisiana is worse, given the lower court’s findings that Act 620 would close every clinic in Louisiana but one, leaving only one provider in the entire state.)

A ruling favorable to Louisiana would provide an opening for other states to make the case that admitting privileges laws don’t burden abortion rights in their state. They could argue, for example, that even though the Court found that providers in Texas were finding it nearly impossible to obtain admitting privileges—and therefore demanding that they do so unduly burdens abortion rights—that’s not necessarily the case in every state.

In the wake of Whole Woman’s Health, several states dropped lawsuits defending their admitting privileges laws. But if the Court sides with Louisiana in June Medical Services, it could breathe new life into those laws. In addition, states that have seen their laws struck down by courts could simply enact new laws.

Alabama and Tennessee 

Alabama and Tennessee were both in the process of litigating the constitutionality of their admitting privileges laws (HB 57 and HB 3808) when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Whole Woman’s Health. Citing that ruling, both states promptly dropped their lawsuits, noting that their state laws were nearly identical to Texas’ and there was therefore no need to continue litigating them.

In court documents filed with the 11th Circuit Court in Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Bentley, attorneys for Alabama noted, “Because Alabama’s law is identical in all relevant respects to the law at issue in Whole Woman’s Health, there is now no good faith argument that the law is constitutional under controlling precedent.”

Tennessee stopped defending its admitting privileges law, in Adams & Boyle, P.C. et al. v. Slatery. Attorneys for Tennessee noted that Whole Woman’s Health had applied the undue burden standard to Texas’ admitting privileges law and found that it constituted an undue burden to access, and that because Tennessee’s law was so similar, it would be a waste of resources to continue litigating it.

Oklahoma 

In 2014, Oklahoma’s Republican-held legislature passed an admitting privileges law that was challenged in Burns v. Cline. The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down the law, rejecting argument that “the impetus for this legislation was to advance and protect women’s health,” noting that “[a]s in Hellerstedt, we reject defendants’ argument and find that SB 1848 places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a lawful abortion. We further find this legislation causes a significant reduction in abortion providers, creating an onerous burden to women of child-bearing age.”

Mississippi

Mississippi’s admitting privileges law, HB 1390—which was enacted in 2012 and which the Fifth Circuit struck down in Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Currier—could be resurrected should the Supreme Court decide that a state-by-state inquiry into whether admitting privileges are an undue burden is required.

Unlike in Whole Woman’s Health, where a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the Texas admitting privileges law (before the Supreme Court struck it down), a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit struck down Mississippi’s law in part because upholding the law would have shuttered Mississippi’s last remaining abortion clinic, unlike in Texas where a handful of clinics remained in the wake of HB 2’s passage. (Mississippi finally gave up defending the law in 2017. Attorneys for the state told the court that they could not “identify any meaningful distinction between the Texas admitting privileges law struck down in Hellerstedt and the admitting privileges requirement of HB 1390.”)

Here’s where it gets alarming: The judges conceded that if it were permitted to take into account the number of abortion clinics available in neighboring states, their calculus might have changed. However, they were constrained by a 1938 Supreme Court decision, Gaines v. Canada, which held states can’t discriminate in the distribution of state services by relying on the availability of similar services in nearby states. “Gaines simply and plainly holds that a state cannot lean on its sovereign neighbors to provide protection of its citizens’ federal constitutional rights, a principle that obviously has trenchant relevance here,” the court wrote.

But given that Supreme Court conservatives don’t seem to value precedent, should the Court be compelled to revisit Gaines, states like Mississippi will no longer have to ensure that at least one clinic remains in their state if they can rely on neighboring states to provide abortion care that Mississippians can access.

Then the question becomes: How far does a pregnant person have to travel before it is considered an undue burden? If a pregnant person cannot access abortion in a neighboring state, what about forcing them to travel two states over? Three states? What if laws shuttering all clinics in one state don’t pose an undue burden as along as at least one state in the country offers abortion care?

These are questions that could become critical if the Court sides with Louisiana and declares that whether or not admitting privileges laws are an undue burden depends on the circumstances in a given state.

Texas and Wisconsin 

A ruling that the constitutionality of these laws is a state-by-state inquiry that involves examining whether admitting privileges laws actually provide a medical benefit could even give states that have seen their laws struck down another bite at the apple.

Texas, the state at the center of the 2016 decision that Louisiana seeks to undermine, and Wisconsin—which saw its admitting privileges law struck down by the Seventh Circuit in 2013 in a case called Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Hollen—could feasibly introduce new admitting privileges laws and learn from Texas’ mistakes in Whole Woman’s Health. Lawmakers in both states could shore up evidence that these laws promote health and safety and that they don’t pose an undue burden. (One way they could do this is by keeping their mouths shut about how gleeful they are that the laws are closing clinics.)

It’s unclear what circumstances in Texas or Wisconsin could have changed so that the admitting privileges laws no longer unduly burden abortion rights. But Republicans have taken over the courts, and the newly Trumpified federal judiciary may be the only change necessary for states like Texas and Wisconsin to try to pass another admitting privileges law, especially if courts are willing to allow state lawmakers to pass the abortion care buck to a neighboring state.

What is clear is that admitting privileges laws provide no medical benefit. They are a solution looking for a problem.

First, they are predicated on a “country doctor” style of medical care that existed at a time when people lived in small communities and had one general practitioner who handled all of their health-care needs. That kind of care doesn’t exist anymore.

Second, admitting privileges are hard to come by due to the stigma that abortion providers face (in part because of unfounded claims like those Louisiana has made before the Court that abortion providers don’t have their patients’ best interest at heart.) In Whole Woman’s Health, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the admitting privilege requirement would force clinics in Texas to shut down because they would be “unable to find local physicians in those communities with privileges who are willing to provide abortions due to the size of the communities and the hostility that abortion providers face.” Hospitals aren’t keen on granting admitting privileges to abortion providers due to that hostility, and in some cases due to the Catholic directives under which many hospitals operate.

Third, hospitals are profit-driven institutions that rely on hospital admissions to operate. In Whole Woman’s Health, the Court called it an “undisputed general fact” that “hospitals often condition admitting privileges on reaching a certain number of admissions per year.” And because abortion is so safe, abortion providers cannot guarantee a minimum number of hospital admissions.

That’s the great irony. Louisiana lawmakers insist admitting privileges laws are necessary to promote the health and safety of pregnant people. But abortion is so safe that many hospitals won’t grant providers admitting privileges.

It’s like ten thousand spoons when all you need is an abortion.

Source: https://rewire.news/ablc/2020/03/03/the-supreme-court-could-create-a-national-nightmare-for-abortion-access/

LOS ANGELES, CA, UNITED STATES – 2019/05/21: An activist seen holding a placard that says I Don’t … [+] LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES

In some ways, reproductive health and medicine are facing greater threats today than ever before, including a fast-approaching Supreme Court fight that could ultimately deny care to millions of US families. Meanwhile, experts in this field are also making major strides, including landmark research on abortion outcomes over time, which debunks numerous common anti-abortion claims.

In January, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) center published the third and final paper based on their groundbreaking Turnaway Study, which tracked the experiences of 1000 women who either received an abortion or were denied one, recorded at one week after the event and then semiannually for five years.

Overall, researchers found that women and their families saw long-term harms when they were denied wanted abortions, including dips in extant children’s developmental progress and women’s income and credit scores. They also concluded that some of the most popular arguments to restrict abortion — suggesting that women will regret their abortions, or that the procedure may be bad for women’s mental health — just don’t line up with the data.

The team’s latest article tackles this point head-on: despite frequent popular rhetoric arguing otherwise, their longitudinal study found that women who received abortions overwhelmingly said that they primarily felt relieved, and continued to feel their decision had been right in the five years that followed.

“We found no evidence of emerging negative emotions or abortion decision regret; both positive and negative emotions declined over the first two years and plateaued thereafter, and decision rightness remained high and steady,” they explained last month in an article for Social Science & Medicine. “At five years postabortion, relief remained the most commonly felt emotion among all women.”

The negative emotions that women did experience seemed to correspond most to perceived levels of decision-difficulty and stigma in their communities, but also petered out over time. “These results add to the scientific evidence that emotions about an abortion are associated with personal and social context, and are not a product of the abortion procedure itself,” researchers wrote.

Dr. Corinne Rocca, the study’s first author and one of the Turnaway Study’s lead researchers, noted in a phone interview that women who were denied abortions reported raised levels of anxiety, but women who received them reported feeling the kind of positive-and-negative emotional mix you’d expect “during any big life event” (such as changing jobs, moving, or ending a relationship).

“Feelings were most mixed during week after, with some sadness, but also happiness and relief; relief was the most common,” Rocca said. “Experiencing negative emotions during a big life event is completely normal; I don’t find that concerning. What I would find concerning would be if that persisted, or if women looked back [months or years later] and felt tremendous guilt,” but that just wasn’t the case. “And a very-high-to-overwhelming proportion said they felt they made the right decision, which held out over five years.”

The data also showed that women’s consistent feeling of ‘decision rightness’ continued “even under difficult circumstances,” Rocca said — for example, if they had chosen to have a late-term abortion, or had self-reported that they live around abortion stigma. “Even they still felt this was the right decision.”

This kind of evidence about women’s emotions and perspectives after abortions hadn’t previously existed, Rocca said — for one thing, because it wouldn’t make sense to compare data on women who had abortions with that of women who experienced miscarriages, or who carried a wanted pregnancy to term.

Now that it is available, Rocca and her colleagues hope lawmakers will start taking this and other scientific evidence into account more often when legislating our reproductive health. In numerous states already, she said, “There have been multiple of these targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws — a family of them, really — all centered around the regret claim.”

Sometimes such laws will require patients to wait 72 hours before getting the procedure, or require two separate visits (one for ‘counseling,’ one for the abortion), or have ultrasound-viewing requirements. “They’re all really targeting the idea that women will regret abortion,” Rocca said.

“But data suggest those policies are wrong, and that those policies won’t work,” she continued. “My desire for this research is really that we just base our policies on evidence. These are needless policies, and probably create the outcome that they are claiming to protect people from.” In terms of providing meaningful support to pregnant persons in the moment of their decision-making, Rocca added, “A better idea would be to offer solutions for dealing with stigma.”

Regarding the oft-used argument that abortion is or may be bad for women’s mental health (or that they’ll come to regret it), Rocca commented, “I think in part it’s because people who are against abortion don’t want to be anti-women, and the claim that they want to protect women from this decision has seemed appealing.” It’s far from the only misconception (or misrepresentation) out there, however. And usually the problem isn’t that research hasn’t been done.

“Some of the biggest gaps in people’s knowledge about abortion, and in the public’s knowledge, aren’t things we haven’t answered yet. They’re things that are out there, and firmly established,” Rocca said.

According to Rocca, the biggest knowledge gap has to do with “just how safe abortion is,” she said. “Far safer than a colonoscopy, or many other common procedures that people routinely get.” That includes surgical as well as medication abortions, “despite [the latter] being heavily regulated by the FDA.”

“The second [gap] is how common it is: people think abortions are rare, but one in three or four women have them in their lifetime,” Rocca said. “People may think they don’t know somebody that’s had one, but they’re wrong.”

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2020/02/29/women-overwhelmingly-dont-regret-abortions-research-finds-but-denying-them-costs-a-ton/#5efd2c021604

Welcome to Pennsylvania, birthplace of the anti-choice movement

South Philly-based writer, activist and model Jessa Jordan models her ‘Everyone Knows I Had an Abortion’ T-shirt. | Image: Elizabeth Rudge

“I’ll walk you through a common experience when accessing abortion in PA,” says Dr. Lin-Fan Wang, a Philly-based family physician and an activist for reproductive health access.

She describes the average person who seeks an abortion in America as “a Christian woman in her 20s with a child, [who] was using birth control when she finds out that she’s about six weeks pregnant,” citing data from the Guttmacher Institute. Pennsylvania’s Department of Health statistics confirm that nearly 60 percent of abortions in PA are sought by women in their 20s, and over 60 percent are eight weeks pregnant or less.

When this pregnant person calls to schedule an appointment, “that’s when she encounters the restrictive state laws in PA,” says Wang. “She is told that even though she made her decision, that at least 24 hours before her abortion, she must have counseling from a physician about her pregnancy options and the risks of abortion, and she is offered a booklet written by the state to persuade them against having an abortion. She goes through the mandated counseling, but then her appointment is scheduled two weeks out instead of 24 hours out.”

After that, Wang says this person will likely have to “take time off work and make child care arrangements. She also has to save up money, because PA law prevents her insurance from covering her abortion.”

If she doesn’t live in Philadelphia, Allegheny, Northhampton or Delaware counties, the counties where 80 percent of PA abortions are performed, she will likely have to travel nearly two hours to reach a clinic, and one that may only provide abortion care once a week.

As of April 2017, Pennsylvania passed a number of restrictions that made abortion harder to access, including requiring the “state-mandated counseling” Wang mentioned, installing a waiting period, and requiring medically unnecessary tests be performed on the patient.

These new rules also make the procedure more costly. For people whose health-care plans were purchased in the ACA exchange or who are public employees, insurance can’t cover abortion, except in the case of danger to the pregnant person’s life, or unless they happen to have an optional rider for such coverage, which comes at additional cost.

Additionally, minors seeking abortions are required to have parental consent, clinics must conform to a number of arbitrary hallway and room-sizing regulations, and patients seeking hormonal birth control implants must wait for a subsequent visit now, all due to these new laws.

Activist and model Jessa Jordan plans to work with Shout Your Abortion to organize Abortionpalooza, a daylong arts festival. | Image: Elizabeth Rudge

The future looks even more difficult, as anti-abortion legislation increases across the nation, clinic funding is attacked, and the Supreme Court is filling with judges antagonistic to reproductive freedom. As recently as January, eight U.S. senators, and eight GOP House of Representative members from Pennsylvania sent a brief to the Supreme Court asking for Roe v Wade to be overturned, which would reverse abortion rights nationwide.

Locally, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TARP) laws attempt to make it impossible for clinics to operate, while so-called fetal heartbeat bills set deadlines for abortions before most women can realize they’re pregnant, effectively banning the procedure. The Pennsylvania House of Representatives introduced such a bill in 2018, which failed in committee. But in 2019, the state passed a ban on abortions after 24 weeks, despite the procedure being almost entirely performed for the health of the pregnant person at that point.

“The current state is horrific – both in PA and nationally. PA is really the birthplace of the anti-choice movement nationwide,” says Elicia Gonzales, executive director of Women’s Medical Fund, an organization that provides financial assistance to women seeking abortion.

On top of the increasing legal obstacles, “cost is a primary barrier to someone being able to access abortion care,” Gonzales says. She says last year Women’s Medical Fund was “able to provide financial support to just over 3,200 people. All of the folks we help are living in poverty, earning around $8K a year. (Some) 72 percent of folks calling our Help Line are already parenting one or two children at home.”

There doesn’t seem to be a dearth of funds for trying to talk people out of abortion, though. Gonzales says Real Alternatives, a Harrisburg-based anti-abortion group, has received $90 million in state funds, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) money, to run anti-abortion centers, which she says, “lie to and manipulate pregnant people out of having an abortion.”

“We heard one story of a pregnant person seeking abortion care who was told she had miscarried – only to find out weeks later she was still pregnant,” Gonzales says.

It wasn’t always this difficult.

“I had planned to spend a weekend out of town visiting my sister, so I didn’t have to ask for time off work,” says Katie, a barista who was living in Center City when she had an abortion in 2011. “I went to the Planned Parenthood clinic that’s right in Center City – I felt very lucky that there were no protesters outside the clinic and I experienced no harassment. I chose a medication abortion – so they did an exam and an ultrasound and then sent me home with the medication. My boyfriend went with me to the clinic and paid for half of the expense, which I think was $300 with my insurance.

Both men and women have differing opinion on abortion. But apparently so does the state of Pennsylvania, which has been stringent on its exercise of laws to protect women. | Image provided

“The medication basically induces a very heavy period which happens over the course of a single day – so I spent the day feeling nauseous and bleeding pretty heavily. It was a fairly uncomfortable experience for the one day, but afterwards all I felt was relief. I’ve never regretted my decision,” she says.

Since then, Katie says, “I’ve felt compelled to speak about my experience to normalize abortion and be an advocate. I’ve been working the last few years with PP and NARAL as much as I can, doing everything from lobby days to organizing marches to volunteering at events.”

Jessa Jordan, a South Philly-based writer, activist and model, has felt similarly motivated to share her experiences.

“I had an abortion when I was 20. The easiest part was the immediate decision to have one,” she says. “I’m extremely lucky that very little about my experience was challenging. I could afford the procedure and didn’t have to travel out of my city or state for it.

“Planned Parenthood made everything as comfortable and calming as they could,” she says, and supplied her with information about the medications involved in the abortion as well as those that can would help with subsequent pain and nausea. The hard part, she says, was the stigma.

“Even though my family and friends supported me through my abortion experience, I felt a lot of societally imposed shame and guilt for choosing to abort my pregnancy. Up to that moment, I never thought I’d be in that position,” Jessa says. She internalized blame even though the pregnancy was a result of a partner removing a condom during sex without telling her.

“When I happened upon Shout Your Abortion,” the movement to normalize abortion, she says, “I felt compelled to share my story to set myself free from that shame. I’ve been trying to be authentic and unapologetically myself and aim to empower others to do the same.” She is now in the process of working with Shout Your Abortion to organize Abortionpalooza, a one-day film and arts festival.

“We heard one story of a pregnant person seeking abortion care who was told she had miscarried – only to find out weeks later she was still pregnant.”

– ELICIA GONZALES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN’S MEDICAL FUND.

What accounts for this stigma and these increasing legislative attacks on abortion rights? Nationwide, support for abortion rights has remained steady and over 60 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

“Anti-choice folks have seeped into the hearts and minds of folks seeking abortion care,” says Gonzales. “Stigma has resulted in folks wondering if they are going to hell or questioning if the fetus will feel pain. It’s important to note that these are sentiments that were not expressed a decade ago.”

“There is still so much stigma regarding abortion, even though it is one of the most common outpatient procedures,” adds Wang. “We need to break the silence and see the people having abortions as the thoughtful, complex, and loving people that they are.”

“Abortions are safe medical procedures and everyone who desires an abortion should be able to have one and not have to go through extremes to have one,” says Jessa. “The stories of people who have abortions should be told by those who have that experience, not a narrative of control, fear and propaganda.”

Source: https://philadelphiaweekly.com/the-current-state/?fbclid=IwAR0YWjblKXnVLbK274r7QXCR_YAEcS4aKLbvAr8bT84Tn8NwJrse7wzbVKU

Even though HB 481 has yet to take effect, Georgia clinics have been inundated with calls from people who worry abortion is illegal or that they’ll be criminalized for obtaining one.

Roxanne Sutocky, the director of community engagement at Atlanta Women’s Center, said the center has used the passage of HB 481 as an opportunity to educate the public on why abortion bans and abortion stigma are harmful and on how to get involved in protecting reproductive rights.
John Ramspott / Flickr

With a stroke of his pen, Georgia’s Republican governor Brian Kemp incited anxiety, confusion, and fear in people who need abortion care in his state when he signed HB 481, a near-total abortion ban, into law in May 2019. The law would prohibit people in the state from accessing an abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before most know they are pregnant.

While HB 481 wasn’t slated to take effect until January 1, 2020, clinics that provide abortion services in Georgia were immediately inundated with phone calls inquiring if abortion was illegal. Despite a temporary injunction halting the ban from taking effect—thanks to a lawsuit to strike down the ban filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Planned Parenthood on behalf of abortion care providers, advocates, and patients—the calls still haven’t stopped.

“When Kemp signed the law last summer, our call center got flooded,” Staci Fox, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast (PPSE), told Rewire.News. “We had to set up a separate number in our call center just for information about where the law and the litigation stood so that patients and anyone, really, could stay informed.” (PPSE operates four health centers that provide abortion care in Georgia and is one of the lawsuit plaintiffs.)

Since HB 481, one of Fox’s priorities has been informing people who need an abortion in Georgia that the procedure is still safe, legal, and available up until a pregnant person reaches 20 weeks (later in special cases), mainly through social media and on-the-ground campaigns. She’s far from alone in this mission—many of PPSE’s fellow plaintiffs are undertaking similar efforts to ensure that people receive accurate information.

Kwajelyn Jackson, the executive director of Feminist Women’s Health Center (FWHC), told Rewire.News it was their duty to join the lawsuit as a reproductive justice-centered clinic that serves patients from marginalized communities. FWHC has been receiving the same nervous calls from abortion-seekers as PPSE.

“We made a banner shortly after the bill was signed to put outside of our clinic that said, ‘This clinic stays open,’ just so that people would have a visual representation of reassurance that we’re here, we’re open, we’re accepting appointments, we’re seeing patients every day—that we don’t have any plans on going anywhere,” Jackson said.

Roxanne Sutocky, the director of community engagement at Atlanta Women’s Center (AWC), another plaintiff, said that after an uptick in calls due to HB 481, their advocacy center staff began tracking the concerns of callers. They found that callers asking about Georgia’s ban were from both inside and outside the state and were generally afraid of being criminalized for accessing an abortion—including callers who’d already had one.

Callers also reported being given misinformation by anti-choice pregnancy centers (also known as “crisis pregnancy centers,” or “fake women’s health centers”). These organizations, of which there are 91 in Georgia, intentionally confuse pregnant people, claiming to offer “abortion pre-screenings” that are really ploys to persuade people from terminating their pregnancies.

“In our call tracking, we actually did talk to folks who said they went to crisis pregnancy centers and were told that because the fetus had a heartbeat, they would go to jail if they got an abortion. So crisis pregnancy centers are absolutely manipulating and taking advantage of folks and their level of understanding of the law and where it stands,” Sutocky said.

When people visit AWC’s website, the first thing they see is a banner: ‘’Yes, abortion care is still legal in Georgia.” This message is all over the center’s social media, as well as on posters and in handouts at the clinic. AWC has used the passage of HB 481 as an opportunity to educate the public on why abortion bans and abortion stigma are harmful and on how to get involved in protecting reproductive rights, Sutocky said.

The anti-abortion measure has inadvertently resulted in opportunities for abortion care providers: PPSE has attracted more clinicians to their staff who provide abortion care. Meanwhile, FWHC has partnered with medical schools to introduce residency programs for a new generation of family planning physicians to be trained to provide abortions. Due to an influx of donations following the signing of the law, their clinic has been able to expand their capacity by hiring new nurses, nurse practitioners, and administrators.

Last week, lawyers for American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Planned Parenthood filed a motion for summary judgment in their lawsuit, asking the judge to permanently block the abortion ban.

The abortion care providers Rewire.News spoke with believe that they will win—“both in the long-term and in the short-term,” Jackson said. She noted that every pre-viability abortion ban (a ban against abortions before a fetus is developed enough to survive outside the uterus) in the United States has been deemed unconstitutional and struck down. Jackson said she deeply believes in the brilliance of the reproductive health, rights, and justice activists who are fighting the abortion ban, and also in the expertise of the attorneys fighting bans and other anti-choice legislation in Georgia and across the country, sentiments echoed by both Sutocky and Fox.

Still, clinics that provide abortion care in Georgia are working together to develop a contingency plan and are part of a national strategy to assess which states are most at risk of losing access to abortion care and which states have the fewest abortion restrictions in case people aren’t able to get the services they need in their home state.

They’re also focused on both national and statewide elections this year, since Republican state legislators were the architects and champions of the ban.

“Let’s be honest: We would not have this abortion ban if it were not for voter suppression tactics. We would have had a different governor in the governor’s mansion who would have vetoed this bill,” Fox said.

Georgia’s abortion care providers are looking forward to being able to focus on issues beyond the ban, such as the state’s high maternal mortality rate. Fox lamented that PPSE wouldn’t be able to devote its full attention to actual reproductive health crises until Republican lawmakers stop “playing politics with people’s lives.”

“They act and say words like ‘we care about women,’ ‘the safety of women,’ and ‘we’re pro-life,’ but their actions do not reflect that,” Fox said. “They’re wasting tax dollars, and they’re wasting Georgia’s time while they’re not focused on real problems.”

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2020/02/26/how-georgias-blocked-6-week-abortion-ban-is-already-affecting-clinics/