Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

If you think the attacks on reproductive rights this year were a mess, just wait until 2019.

Conservative state lawmakers passed a surge of unconstitutional pre-viability abortion bans this year in an effort to tee up a challenge to Roe v. Wade. These included everything from bans on the safest, most common form of second-trimester abortion to laws that would outright re-criminalize abortion. So far, the federal courts have proven to be the necessary firewall preventing conservatives from enshrining these restrictions into law. But Republicans spent most of 2018 vigorously packing the federal courts with judges they believe to be ready and willing to roll back abortion rights as far as possible—so that barrier might not hold in 2019.

Here’s a sample of some of the worst anti-choice restrictions passed in the states this year.

Dilation and Evacuation Bans

“Dismemberment abortion” bans target dilation and evacuation (D and E) procedures, the most commonly used method of second-trimester abortion. D and E bans have been enacted in nine states in the past four years: Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia. With the exception of Mississippi and West Virginia, courts have blocked or temporarily enjoined the laws in each.

In April, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) signed HB 454, banning D and E procedures when the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 11 weeks or greater. Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Kentucky filed a complaint, arguing the law violates patients’ federal constitutional due process rights to privacy and bodily integrity. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of EMW Women’s Surgical Center, the only remaining abortion clinic in the state. The law—which went to trial last month—will remain blocked while the case proceeds.

Louisiana and Mississippi this year enacted laws banning all abortion after 15 weeks’ gestation. Both bills were drafted with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal advocacy firm that targets reproductive and LGBTQ rights. Mississippi, where D and E abortions are already banned, enacted HB 1510 in March, which was quickly blocked. A federal judge last month struck down the 15-week ban in Mississippi, declaring the law “unequivocally” unconstitutional. The state of Mississippi has filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Louisiana enacted SB 181 in May with the stipulation that the law—which would disproportionately affect D and E procedures—would only take effect upon any final decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding Mississippi’s ban.

Ohio lawmakers took advantage of the lame-duck session to pass SB 145, a measure that would make performing a D and E abortion a felony. The bill—which passed the state senate during the summer of 2017—saw final passage this week after more than a year of inactivity. On December 21, Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed the bill into law.

Eleven other states this year considered measures that would ban the D and E procedure, effectively outlawing abortion past 14 weeks’ gestation.

Six-Week “Heartbeat” Bans

So-called heartbeat bans seek to outlaw abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur as early as six weeks into pregnancy and well before many people even realize they are pregnant. Heartbeat bans—which amount to near-total abortion bans—are clearly unconstitutional and have been blocked in Arkansas and North Dakota.

In May, Iowa became the third state to enact a fetal heartbeat abortion ban. The measure provides a narrow exception in cases where a person’s life is in danger, and for cases of reported rape and incest. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Iowa filed a complaint, and the law was temporarily blocked over the summer. A district court judge earlier this month heard arguments over whether the law should be declared unconstitutional without a trial. Regardless of the ruling—which is expected in the next month or so—the case will likely end up at the Iowa Supreme Court.

Not content with effectively banning most abortions at 14 weeks, lawmakers in Ohio used the lame-duck session to push through yet another heartbeat abortion ban (they’ve been trying since 2011). Except in cases of medical emergency, HB 258 would make it a felony for providers to perform or induce an abortion when a fetal heartbeat has been detected. The bill was amended in state senate committee to clarify that the use of a transvaginal ultrasound to detect the fetal heartbeat would not be required. This would effectively ban abortion anywhere from nine to 12 weeks’ gestation—the time at which an abdominal ultrasound can be used to detect a fetal heartbeat. It’s worth noting that Ohio lawmakers in 2016 passed a heartbeat bill along with a measure ending access to abortion after 20 weeks’ gestation. Kasich was able to appear more moderate than he actually is by vetoing the six-week abortion ban while signing the 20-week ban. On December 21, he again vetoed the heartbeat ban while signing the D and E ban. The state legislature failed to override the veto.

Ten other states this year considered measures to criminalize the performance of an abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Fetal Personhood

Personhood laws seek to grant constitutional rights to fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. Most personhood laws outlaw abortion with no exception, and can also ban many forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization. These laws can come in many different forms, from constitutional amendments declaring the right to life from the moment of conception to the issuance of fetal death certificates for miscarriages and aborted fetuses.

In April, Arizona enacted SB 1393, requiring courts in a divorce proceeding to award in vitro embryos to the spouse that intends to allow the embryos to develop to birth. Critics of the law have described it as a backdoor attempt to grant embryos personhood.

In 2017, lawmakers in Alabama passed a measure proposing an amendment to the state constitution declaring the public policy of the state to recognize and support the sanctity of “unborn life” and the rights of “unborn children,” including the right to life. The amendment was on the ballot during the 2018 midterms, and Alabama voters overwhelmingly approved the measure to grant constitutional rights to fertilized eggs and fetuses. While the amendment doesn’t actually criminalize anything, it does pave the way for far more restrictions.

West Virginia lawmakers this year had a constitutional amendment of their own. The “No Constitutional Right to Abortion Amendment” passed the state legislature in March and was added to the ballot in November. The amendment—which voters approved—declares that nothing in the state constitution “secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion.” While the amendment doesn’t specifically grant rights to fetuses, it acknowledges “legislative authority to protect innocent life.” As with Alabama’s ballot measure, the amendment doesn’t outlaw abortion, though it all but guarantees more restrictive measures to come.

Sixteen other states this year considered measures to recognize or classify fertilized eggs and fetuses as persons.

Oh, We’re Not Done

If you think the attacks on reproductive rights this year were a mess, just wait until 2019. “Heartbeat” abortion bans have already been prefiled in Kentucky, Missouri, and South Carolina. Constitutional amendments granting rights to fetuses have been prefiled in South Carolina and Texas. And a total abortion ban punishable by life imprisonment—for providers and patients—has been prefiled in Oklahoma. It’s. Not. Even. January.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/12/29/here-are-the-worst-abortion-restrictions-conservative-state-lawmakers-passed-this-year/

Despite coming up a single vote shy of reversing the veto, GOP leaders warned they “will have a supermajority that is pro-life in both chambers in the next General Assembly.”

A protester holds a hanger during a demonstration against a proposed bill that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected in Columbus on Dec. 12, 2018. The bill was passed by members of the Ohio Senate, but outgoing Governor John Kasich has said he would veto the bill.Matthew Hatcher / Zuma Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Statehouse Republicans in Ohio came up a single vote shy Thursday of reversing a same-party governor’s veto and imposing one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

The outcome marked a victory for outgoing Republican Gov. John Kasich, a prospective 2020 presidential contender who has vetoed the so-called heartbeat bill twice in as many years. Kasich argued in a veto message last week that the law would be declared unconstitutional, but only after saddling the state with a costly court battle.

Republican Senate President Larry Obhof dismissed the cheers that broke out in his chamber after senators voted 19-13 to override the so-called heartbeat bill veto, when 20 votes were needed. The bill would have prohibited the procedure at the first detectable heartbeat, as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

“I think that the celebration for some of the people in here will be short-lived,” Obhof told reporters. “We will have a supermajority that is pro-life in both chambers in the next General Assembly — we’re getting sworn in in less than two weeks, and we have a governor coming in who has said he would sign that bill.”

Still, abortion rights activists bedecked in red and pink regalia claimed the vote as a victory. The bill’s author, Janet Porter, declined a request for comment.

The failing Senate vote followed a successful override count in the Ohio House. The chamber mustered exactly the 60 votes necessary, but only after swiftly swearing in the 80-year-old father of a former state representative to take his seat and cast the deciding vote.

“What you see continuously with this bill — with the last-minute pushes, the never full sets of hearings, always last-minute hijinks — really proves that they know they don’t have the will of the people with this bill,” said Jaime Miracle of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. “It is just too extreme. Without exceptions for rape and incest, a 6-week abortion ban is blatantly unconstitutional.”

That was what Kasich effectively said in his second veto message on the bill in as many years.

During the rare post-Christmas showdown, Ohio lawmakers did successfully override Kasich’s vetoes of two other bills, one expanding gun-owner rights and another he opposed because it increased the pay of elected officials, including some incoming state officeholders.

“The governor doesn’t always agree with the General Assembly’s decisions — and on these issues he profoundly disagrees — but he, of course, respects its role in the process,” spokesman Jon Keeling said in a statement.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-governor-s-veto-strict-heartbeat-abortion-bill-survives-attempted-n952661?fbclid=IwAR1xNXBo98lVvp_yKUR_UP3ReAIfHlrT_m8IIawNIqCb97Ql4k6t6aNQlnU

The Government hopes to fast-track the introduction of safe access zones to prevent protests outside hospitals and clinics that provide abortion services.

Health Minister Simon Harris had hoped to pass legislation to ban such demonstrations in tandem with the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill, which will come into force from January 1.

Mr Harris says the lack of an exclusion zone around hospitals and clinics “carries a significant likelihood of demonstrations taking place”.

“This is distressing and upsetting for the service user and indeed the staff,” said Mr Harris, who will be pushing to have the legislation brought forward as a matter of urgency.

Gardaí were called to Dublin’s Rotunda Hospital during the referendum campaign when anti-abortion groups displayed banners with extreme and graphic images.

Mr Harris has already secured Government approval to draft legislative proposals which would prevent further protests, however, it will not be in place when abortion services are first rolled out.

The proposals will ensure safe access zones are designated around and outside relevant premises to make sure staff and patients can access them “without fear of intimidation or harassment and without being subjected to unwanted communications by any means, including oral, written and/or visual displays, in relation to services for termination of pregnancy”.

It would also prohibit interfering or communicating with a person in a safe access zone in a way that “causes distress, and to prohibit capturing and/or distributing images of any person in a safe access zone”.

A spokesperson for the minister said: “These provisions would not limit freedom of speech or prevent demonstrations against termination of pregnancy locations other than outside health services. It will also not limit other demonstrations for example, regarding industrial relations, at health service premises.

“The minister’s priority is ensuring service users and staff are protected and not subject to unnecessary intimidation or duress.”

Source: https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/health-minister-to-ban-protests-at-abortion-providers-894311.html

Lawmakers in at least three states have already pre-filed “heartbeat” abortion bans. Will this unconstitutional abortion ban be the anti-choice movement’s full-frontal attack on abortion rights in 2019?

Ohio’s so-called heartbeat ban made headlines for the last month of 2018, but the restrictions aren’t going anywhere.
Alex Wong / Getty

On December 21, Ohio Gov. John Kasich vetoed the legislature’s attempt to become the fourth state to pass a law that bans abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected. But that doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods—it wasn’t the state’s first try at passing such an extreme abortion restriction, and it won’t be the last. Here at Team Legal, we thought it would be a good idea to provide an overview of what these bans are, whether they’re constitutional, and why anti-choicers are so excited about them.

So what are these bans? The short answer is that they’re bullshit. The long answer is that they are bills that attempt to outlaw abortions as soon as a heartbeat can be detected.

You may be asking: When can a heartbeat be detected?

Aye. There’s the rub. That depends on how strict the heartbeat ban is. Some heartbeat ban bills—like the one Arkansas passed in 2013, and the one the Ohio legislature passed—require fetal heartbeat detection by way of abdominal ultrasound, which generally cannot detect fetal heartbeat until somewhere between nine and 12 weeks.

But the most strict heartbeat bans require that a pregnant person be subjected to a transvaginal ultrasound so that a fetal heartbeat can be detected. This can happen as early as six weeks’ gestation—before many people even know that they’re pregnant.

To put it in laypeople’s terms, if your period is two weeks late, you might think to yourself, “Huh. That’s strange.” You might go to the store, buy a pregnancy test, take the pregnancy test, freak out that it’s positive, make an appointment with a doctor to verify the results and talk about next steps. By the time that all takes place, you would be timed out of getting an abortion, should you choose to get one, because your six weeks would already be up. It is, effectively, a total abortion ban—because you’re either timed out from the get-go or by the time you meet all the other state restrictions, which can include 72-hour mandatory waiting periods, then you’re timed out.

Regardless of the specific timing of the bans, the legal difference is irrelevant. Heartbeat bans are pre-viability abortion bans and, as such, are unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, made it clear that states may not ban abortion outright before the fetus is determined to be viable, recognized by the medical community as around 24 weeks’ gestation. There’s no universe in which a six-week or even 12-week pregnancy is viable. In addition, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that states may not place an undue burden on a person’s right to choose an abortion.  These bans would qualify as a burden. Obviously.

But states like South Carolina, Missouri, and Kentucky have already pre-filed their 2019 heartbeat ban bills even though no federal court in the country has upheld a heartbeat ban, including North Dakota’sand in Arkansas. Iowa passed a heartbeat ban last year. It, too, was struck down by a state court in Iowa. As the timeline below shows, that hasn’t deterred the anti-choice forces in these states who seem to welcome the challenge.

Why would they continuously file unconstitutional bills then? To provide the Supreme Court as many opportunities as possible to reverse course on abortion rights. After all, Janet Porter, the head of the anti-choice extremist group Faith2Action, the architect of the Ohio bill, and a woman deemed too extreme for Christian talk radio, recently said that it won’t be long before the Supreme Court welcomes the legislation with open arms, according to a Newsweek report. And with Christian evangelical legal advocacy groups like Liberty Counsel offering to defend the Ohio law, more states may be emboldened to enact unconstitutional abortion bans if they don’t have to rely on taxpayer dollars to fund them.

So will we see one of these effective abortion bans making its way to the nation’s highest court, or to Congress? Only time will tell.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/12/26/heartbeat-bans-how-we-got-here-and-where-were-headed/

FILE – In this April 4, 2017 file photo, Ohio Gov. John Kasich speaks in Sandusky, Ohio.
Ron Schwane, AP

COLUMBUS – Ohio Gov. John Kasich just signed one of the most restrictive abortions bans in the nation.

And it wasn’t the “heartbeat bill.”

On Friday, Kasich signed Senate Bill 145, which would ban a common second-trimester abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation and penalize doctors who perform them. Physicians could face a fourth-degree felony, punishable by up to 18 months in prison, for the procedure.

The proposal, which would ban most abortions as early as 12 weeks gestation, has no exception for rape or incest but does allow for an abortion to save a woman’s life.

“I’m pro-life,” Kasich told a crowd at the Columbus Metropolitan Club Wednesday. “I think the issue, whether you’re pro-life or you’re pro-choice, is moving in the direction of the earliest the better and not the latest.”

Kasich once again vetoed a proposed law to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, also known as the “heartbeat bill.” House Bill 258 would have banned abortions as early as eight to 10 weeks.

Ohio lawmakers will try to override Kasich’s veto of the heartbeat bill, but it’s not clear if they will have the votes. They would need support from three-fifths of lawmakers in both chambers to override the veto.

“The central provision of (the bill), that an abortion cannot be performed if a heartbeat has been detected in the unborn child, is contrary to the Supreme Court of the United States’ current rulings on abortion,” Kasich said in a veto message accompanying the bill.

By banning dilation and evacuation procedures, Ohio joins two other states, Mississippi and West Virginia, that have halted those types of abortions. A handful of other states have passed laws to penalize the procedure, but federal courts have called them unconstitutional.

In a dilation and evacuation abortion, a woman’s cervix is dilated then surgical instruments, such as forceps, are used to remove the fetus and uterine lining. In 2017, the method was used in 3,441 abortions – nearly one of every six performed in Ohio, according to the Ohio Department of Health’s report.

Doctors testified that dilation and evacuation is the safest option for abortions in the second trimester. Alternatives, such as inducing labor, come with more health risks, said Dr. Wayne Trout, chairman of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Ohio Right to Life, which lobbied for the ban on dilation and evacuation abortions, applauded Kasich’s efforts to restrict abortion in the state.

“Ohio Right to Life is immensely grateful to our governor and our pro-life legislature for prioritizing this crucial legislation,” said Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, in a statement.

Abortion rights advocates focused on the bill Kasich signed more than the one he vetoed.

“John Kasich is reckless and irresponsible,” NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland said. “He has ignored pleas from Ohio’s medical community that politicians should not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship or block access to abortion care in our state.”

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/21/ohio-gov-john-kasich-signs-one-nations-most-restrictive-abortion-bans-vetoes-heartbeat-bill/2366674002/

If this sneak peek at next year’s bills are any indication, 2019 is going to be a doozy.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich is mulling what to do about abortion policy in his state. But there’s a good chance he’ll pull a move similar to one he did in 2016. He vetoed a terrible anti-abortion law only to sign a slightly less restrictive but still terrible measure.
Yuri Gripas/AFP/Getty Images

Lawmakers in South Carolina and Missouri are racing to see who can get the most abortion restrictions filed before the new year, Republicans in South Dakota want pregnant patients to listen to their ultrasounds, and the future of reproductive rights in Ohio remains unclear. So … happy holidays?!

South Carolina

Prefiling for South Carolina’s 2019 legislative session has commenced, and anti-abortion lawmakers are making sure they have all their bases covered. On Tuesday, state Rep. Josiah Magnuson (R-Campobello) filed H 3289, which would change the state constitution to grant a right to life to embryos and fetuses. The “Personhood Act of South Carolina” states “[t]he right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization.” The bill clarifies that the law would not prohibit contraception, in vitro fertilization, or any medical procedure designed to save the life of a pregnant person. Much like the personhood measure recently approved by voters in Alabama, the law wouldn’t actually criminalize anything. But it would pave the way for far more restrictions.

Last week, state Sens. Larry Grooms (R-Charleston) and Greg Hembree (R-Dillon-Horry) prefiled a measureto require testing for a detectable fetal heartbeat prior to an abortion. If a fetal heartbeat is detected—which can occur as early as six weeks into pregnancy—doctors would be be prohibited from performing an abortion. A companion bill was filed Tuesday in the state House by Rep. John McCravy (R-Greenwood). That measure already has more than 50 co-sponsors, including four Democrats. Looking at you, Reps. Jackie Hayes, Frank Atkinson, Ivory Thigpen, and William Wheeler. Except in cases of medical emergency, a person who fails to test for a fetal heartbeat or who performs an abortion once a fetal heartbeat has been detected would be guilty of a felony.

If that doesn’t stick, lawmakers also filed a ban on the safest, most commonly used method of second-trimester abortion. The so-called “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act,” would make it a felony to perform the dilation and evacuation (D and E) procedure, which is typically used around 14 weeks’ gestation. A physician who knowingly performs such a procedure would be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, be fined $10,000 and/or imprisoned for two years. Based on model legislation drafted by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), D and E bans have been enacted in nine states in the past four years: Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia. With the exception of Mississippi and West Virginia, courts have blocked or temporarily enjoined the laws in each. A D and E ban in Ohio is awaiting signature, but more on that later.

And finally, Republican lawmakers also filed a pair of bills that would allow college and university student groups to discriminate against LGBTQ students and others by limiting membership based on religious belief. State Sen. Chip Campsen (R-Charleston) filed the “Student Association Freedom of Religion Act,” while state Rep. Garry Smith (R-Greenville) filed the “Forming Open and Robust University Minds (FORUM) Act.” Both bills would prohibit public institutions of higher learning from taking any action or enforcing any policy that denies a religious student association any benefit available to other associations based on the religious student association’s requirement that its leaders or members adhere to its “sincerely held religious beliefs” or standards of conduct.

Missouri

Lawmakers in Missouri continued to prefile legislation in anticipation of the 2019 legislative session set to begin next month. State house Rep. Sonya Anderson (R-Springfield) filed HB 282, which would require abortion providers or family-planning agencies to provide informed consent materials to any pregnant person they refer to an out-of-state abortion clinic. Anderson has tried and failed to pass this measure for the past four years. This issue might be more relevant this year as more and more pregnant people are traveling to Illinois for abortion amid growing restrictions in Missouri.

On Wednesday, state Rep. Adam Schnelting (R-Saint Charles) filed HB 339, which would establish the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” At the time of publication, the actual text of measure had yet to be filed. But according to the bill summary, it’s a 20-week ban. Based on model legislation drafted by the NRLC, “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection” measures prohibit abortion after 20 weeks’ gestation on the unfounded claim that fetuses can feel pain at that point of pregnancy. HB 339 would prohibit a person from performing or inducing, or attempting to perform or induce, an abortion of a “fetus capable of feeling pain” unless it’s necessary to prevent serious health risk to the pregnant person. A physician who violates this measure would be at risk of losing their medical license.  An identical bill introduced earlier in the year managed to pass the state house, but failed to advance in the senate.

South Dakota

Republicans in South Dakota last week prefiled a measure prohibiting a physician from performing an abortion on a pregnant person without first displaying the sonogram images of the fetus so that the pregnant person may view the images and hear any heart sounds. Current state law prohibits abortion facilities from performing an abortion without first offering the pregnant person the opportunity to view a sonogram of the fetus. SB 6 would require a physician to provide verbal explanations of both the images and audio resulting from the ultrasound. The abortion facility would need to document any instance where a patient declines to receive such verbal explanations. One of the primary sponsors of the bill, state Sen. Stace Nelson (R-Fulton), is hell-bent on ending abortion, which he says is “an evil, barbaric, pagan, brutal practice [and] the antithesis of liberty.” He seems fun!

Kentucky

In case you missed it, Kentucky became the third state to file a fetal heartbeat abortion ban for the 2019 legislative session. Like most of the others, it would ban abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, unless it’s necessary to save the life of, or prevent serious injury to, the pregnant person. Filed last week by freshman state Rep. Robert Goforth (R-East Bernstadt), the bill would make it a felony to perform or attempt to perform an abortion when a fetal heartbeat has been detected.

Ohio

Despite indicating he would, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) still hasn’t vetoed HB 258, an unconstitutional fetal heartbeat abortion ban. While most heartbeat abortion bans would ban abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, HB 258 was amended to clarify that the use of a transvaginal ultrasound would not be required. This change meant that the law would instead ban abortions anywhere from nine to 12 weeks’ gestation. Cool amendment. Still unconstitutional.

Kasich hasn’t yet indicated whether or not he’ll sign SB 145, the law banning the most commonly used method of second-trimester abortion. Which means he’s probably going to pull a 2016: Veto the heartbeat bill and approve the slightly-less restrictive—but still terrible—abortion ban so he can pretend to be more moderate than he actually is. Or maybe he’ll surprise me, and I’ll have to change my New Year’s resolution to stop being such a Debbie Downer. Even if he vetoes both bills, lawmakers have already scheduled a post-Christmas session to override him. Right now, it looks like the heartbeat bill won’t have enough votes for an override—but the D and E ban would. Once again, happy holidays.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/12/21/legislative-lowlights-season-heartbeat-bans/

On December 12, Ohio state lawmakers voted to pass a bill banning abortions as early as six weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. But Ohio’s antiabortion bill doesn’t just have implications for women in the state—it’s a threat to women’s reproductive rights around the country. The legislation outlines a ban on abortion after the point at which a fetal heartbeat can be detected. That’s as early as six weeks, when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant yet.

It’s among the stricter abortion bills to pass in the U.S., considering the fact that it would make abortions illegal even in the case of rape or incest. “This is a real threat to abortion access,” says Gabriel Mann, communications manager for the Ohio chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “It would be a traumatic thing to force women to carry unintended pregnancies to term.” (The bill does allow for exceptions in cases where the woman’s health is threatened to avoid “serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”)

If the bill, which has passed in both the state House and Senate, is signed into law by Ohio’s governor, John Kasich, there are two major implications for women’s reproductive rights:

First up, it will make providing an abortion in Ohio a felony, carrying a potential one-year jail sentence for doctors. But opponents are particularly concerned with what the bill means for women. “This bill to ban nearly all abortions in Ohio is part of a larger movement to ban abortion state by state,” says Ghazaleh Moayedi, M.D., a Texas-based ob-gyn and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. Last month Alabama and West Virginia voted to pass similar laws, restricting statewide access to abortion and criminalizing the procedure for physicians.

“When women do not have access to safe, legal abortion nearby, many women will do whatever they can to try to access care,” says Daniel Grossman, M.D., an abortion provider and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health. “Some women may travel out of state to access legal services. They may be delayed in the process and end up obtaining the abortion later in pregnancy, which may increase the risks and cost of the procedure.” With that in mind, it’s no surprise abortion bans like this one are especially harsh on women of color, low-income families, and younger women.

Bans like Ohio’s antiabortion “heartbeat bill” challenge abortion rights nationwide. Ohio’s bill previously passed in 2016 but was vetoed by Kasich, who argued it was “clearly contrary to the Supreme Court of the United States’ current rulings on abortion.”

So what’s changed? Thanks to Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who expressed antiabortion views during his confirmation hearings, the U.S. Supreme Court now has a conservative majority—and it’s giving supporters of Ohio’s abortion ban reason to get excited. Representative Ron Hood, a Republican state representative, told Cincinnati.com he’s optimistic that the Supreme Court would back Ohio’s ban if challenged. “I am very confident that we would have a favorable ruling,” Hood said.

The bottom line? These statewide bills restricting women’s reproductive rights aren’t just isolated events, Dr. Moayedi says—that’s important to note. “This is something that we see nationally, where these kinds of bills are introduced simultaneously in multiple states,” she explains. “They are very much part of a movement to restrict access through all sorts of avenues and realms.”

In other words, even if you don’t live in Ohio, it’s worth paying attention to—experts on the Supreme Court have suggested that laws like this one that directly contradict Roe v. Wade won’t be uncommon.

Source: https://www.glamour.com/story/what-ohio-new-anti-abortion-bill-means?mbid=social_facebook_ta&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+New+Content+(Feed)&utm_content=5c1dc4d21adf640001e9e1ae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&verso=true

News outlets should all be striving to publish evidence-based journalism rather than repeating misinformation.

Letting the anti-choice movement shape the story was among the oversights news outlets made this year.
Robin Marty / Flickr

I swear, I used to listen to podcasts for fun.

Instead, my morning rituals now often involve a brisk walk around the block or trip to the gym, all while exasperatedly talking back to the podcast hosts at various news outlets for repeating misinformation in the service of “maintaining neutrality.” (Yes, my neighbors do find me delightful, thank you for asking!) I’m not sure when I started to become my own dad—who himself has established a robust retirement habit of yelling at the TV right around sundown every evening—but I look forward to the mid-calf sock collection and fascination with rehabbed vintage 1940s Ford Mustangs that will surely follow.

In all seriousness, it’s not like I delight in extracurricular criticism. These outlets are producing great and necessary journalism; that’s why I follow them in the first place! And I know we’re all trying our hardest to put forth evidence-based work in an increasingly frenzied landscape. But when mainstream media screws up coverage of reproductive health, rights, and justice issues, that has serious consequences. As NPR pointed out in 2006, for example, the use of the term “partial-birth abortion,” which was created by anti-choice activists to undermine a rare medical procedure, made it all the way up to Congress. Ultimately, that procedure was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court—thanks, in no small part, to the phrase’s emotional connotations. Even today, though, journalists still uncritically use the term without noting its origin or its inaccuracy.

I asked the Rewire.News staff about which mistakes they still saw news outlets making about issues Rewire.News covers—and how we all can do better going forward. Here are a few of their responses.

Worsening the Secrecy Around Catholic Hospitals

About one in six acute-care hospital beds in the country are in Catholic facilities. But as Rewire.NewsInvestigative Reporter Amy Littlefield has pointed out, many women don’t know their hospitals are Catholic. And that has real consequences: Many Catholic health-care facilities adhere to restrictions on care such as tubal ligations, birth control, vasectomies, transition-related services, and miscarriage management. Rewire.News has uncovered some of the results of the growing Catholic influence on health care, including doctors waiting for their patients to sicken as they miscarried and women being pressuredinto burying their miscarried fetuses. But much of the effects remain unknown—and Catholic health systems want it that way.

Unfortunately, some news outlets fail to even mention that hospitals are Catholic—let alone note their restrictions—in their stories about those facilities. In July, the New York Times ran a lengthy piece detailing the ramifications of rural hospital closures on patients like a woman named Kela Abernathy, who had to travel 100 miles while in labor to deliver twins. But, as Littlefield pointed out in a commentary piece, the Times failed to mention that the hospital Abernathy drove to “follows Catholic religious directives that can put the lives of patients like [Abernathy] at risk.” In other words, if you’re a rural patient who needs the kind of care Catholic hospitals restrict, you might find yourself making a two-hour drive only to be turned away at the door. The Times made a similar mistake in November in a piece about hospital mergers.

As Littlefield wrote, “The Trump administration is acting to expand the ability of health-care providers to deny a range of services by citing religion. It’s more important than ever that news outlets like the Times do their part to address this information gap by noting when a hospital restricts health care on religious grounds.”

Letting the Anti-Choice Movement Shape the Story

The anti-choice movement has a long history of wearing all kinds of disguises to conceal its primary goal: to restrict reproductive autonomy, especially for women. Sometimes, journalists find themselves aiding in the deception. This can be more overt, such as the Atlantic and then the Washington Post hiring on a columnist who once proposed people who have abortions “should be hanged” or the Wall Street Journal‘s Jason L. Riley repeating the racist myth that Black women seeking abortions are participating in “black violent behavior.” As National Network of Abortion Funds Executive Director Yamani Hernandez wrote in July, “Black people who have abortions aren’t being forced to do so, and trying to coerce Black women into continuing their pregnancies or expanding families is advancing white supremacist notions about what Black women are here for …. Strangely, anti-choice interests in the ‘Black population’ always end after birth.”

Other times, it’s more subtle—maybe even inadvertent. Take, for example, this Atlantic piece from January titled “Science Is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost.” First of all, so much about the anti-choice movement has nothing to do with science. But as Rewire.News Editorial and Research Associate Laura Huss posted on Twitter, writer Emma Green repeated inaccuracies about the anti-choice organizations at the heart of her piece. For instance, Green referred to the Charlotte Lozier Institute as “a relatively new D.C. think tank that seeks to bring ‘power of science, medicine and research to bear in life-related policymaking, media, and debates’” and that it “shares an office with Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent pro-life advocacy organization.” Huss noted on Twitter that “sharing office space is not the same as being under the UMBRELLA for a huge and powerful anti-abortion org. And any article that doesn’t explicitly say that is promoting wrong information. Also the Lozier Institute has been around for over 7 years, so new? nope.”

Huss also pointed out another trend in a different Twitter thread: news outlets’ use of anti-choice terminology like “dismemberment abortion” bans to mean dilation and evacuation bans. Like referring to dilation and extraction abortions as “partial-birth abortion,” this is just another way for the anti-choice movement to associate routine medical procedures with grisliness. See also “unborn child” versus “fetus,”or “mother” versus “pregnant person.” As journalists, it’s on us to examine what words really mean, and what ideas they’re reinforcing—before those ideas make it all the way up to Capitol Hill.

Not Thinking Deeply About What “Minority” Means

Speaking of thoughtful language choices, the frequent use of the word “minority” to mean “people of color” scored high on Rewire.News Vice President and Managing Editor Regina Mahone’s aggravation meter. The examples of this are almost too numerous to mention, but it’s worth breaking down the kind of message these outlets are conveying. For one thing, “minority” generally isn’t used accurately based on its definition alone. People who self-identified on the census as “white alone, not Hispanic or Latino” make up about a third of New York City’s population. That rate is similar to the one for the cities of Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Chicago. So why do stories about those cities—or about the United States, or the world—often refer to “minority” neighborhoods or “minority-owned” businesses when they’re talking about people of color?

Well, a lot of reasons—many of them hinging on the idea of whiteness as the default. In a great breakdownat Splinter (then Fusion), Daniel King noted that “Using the terms racial ‘minorities’ and ‘nonwhite’ center all of us around whiteness …. The words ‘minorities’ and ‘nonwhite’ are contingent on whiteness for meaning and standing in the United States.”

The term “minorities” is also inaccurate when used as a catchall. When you’re writing “minority neighborhoods,” do you mean neighborhoods primarily populated by Black people? Disabled people? Muslim people? LGBTQ people? All of these groups might be considered a “minority” in the sense of numbers, but obscuring their specific presence in a story means, in turn, obscuring the ways that power can specifically affect them (especially for individuals who belong to more than one such group). White gay men have not historically faced the same discrimination in housing, for instance, as Black trans women, and failing to differentiate this means that we’re not holding the people behind that discrimination accountable. Plus, the word itself—”minority”—suggests an inherent “less-than.”

King pointed out that the word “minority” can be useful when it’s highlighting power disparities or in reporting on data. And it’s true: If a scientist has only used the word “minority” in their research without defining it, it may be necessary for us to do so. But as white supremacy creeps its way through our local, state, and federal governments, it’s imperative that news outlets start doing their part to address it—including in their language.

Treating Abortion Like It’s Optional for Democrats

C’mon, y’all. It’s not gonna be good for anyone.

Not Centering the People Most Affected

This is an eternal source of grumpiness for, well, pretty much everyone on staff. Consider, for example, reporting about the United States’ shockingly high maternal mortality rate that buries the fact that Black women are three to four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes than white women, or don’t mention it at all. Or stories that feed into stereotypes about trans youth without featuring, as Alex Barasch put it at Slate, “a single happy, well-adjusted trans teen among its host of central characters.” Or a media environment that forces trans people “to perform sadness or pain just to get published,” as Rewire.NewsFederal Policy Reporter Katelyn Burns wrote in November. Or news outlets that portray mass male shooters as “lone wolves” or “mentally ill” when they’re white, and as terrorists when they’re not. Or stories that feature disabled protesters as “inspirational” and missing the driving purpose of their activism. Or photos that suggest people seeking abortions are visibly pregnant. And on, and on, and on.

Look, pobody’s nerfect. We recognize that no one story can do everything and that it’s often a lot easier to critique than to create. It’s more important than ever, though, for us to hold ourselves to the standards of evidence rather than succumbing to hype or “both-sides” journalism that is anything but accurate. We in the media have to interrogate existing narratives that reinforce stereotypes or ignore the ways people are getting left behind by those in power. If we don’t, we’re doing our readers, our beats, our interview subjects, and ourselves a disservice.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/12/21/hall-of-shame-what-news-outlets-got-wrong-about-reproductive-rights-and-justice-this-year/