Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

“State politicians, in lock step with the Trump-Pence administration, are bending the rules to take away women’s health and rights any way they can,” said Danielle Wells of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Tennessee is the latest state to attempt to prohibit abortion care providers from receiving reimbursements for serving patients with low incomes through the state’s Medicaid program.

Congressional Republicans and GOP-majority state legislatures have long sought to block funding to Planned Parenthood, which received $543.7 million in government funding through federal reimbursements and grants during fiscal year 2016, according the organization’s annual report.

The Hyde Amendment already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion services, except in limited circumstances.

The Trump administration in January rescinded Obama-era guidance that stated excluding Medicaid funding for health-care providers that offer abortion care violates federal law. The Obama administration issued the guidance in response to state-level GOP efforts to defund Planned Parenthood—attacks on health care for people with low incomes.

Danielle Wells, assistant director of state advocacy media for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Bloomberg Law that the efforts by state lawmakers are a “backdoor attempt” to block the health-care organization from providing reproductive care.

“State politicians, in lock step with the Trump-Pence administration, are bending the rules to take away women’s health and rights any way they can,” Wells said.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R), a staunch opponent of abortion rights, signed legislation in April to avoid the “direct or indirect use of state funds to promote or support elective abortions.”

HB 2251, sponsored by Rep. Jimmy Matlock (R-Lenoir City), directs the state to seek a waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to exclude providers from participating in the state’s Medicaid program if inclusion of the provider in the program would result in the use of state funds for abortion.

The bill, which was passed by wide margins in the GOP-dominated state legislature, is based on copycat legislation drafted by Americans United for Life (AUL), the self-described “legal architect” of the anti-choice movement.

Dr. Wendy Long, director of TennCare, on August 10 submitted a request to exclude from the state’s Section 1115 Medicaid waiver any provider or affiliates of any provider that has performed more than 50 abortions in the previous year.

Sarah Tanksley, spokesperson for TennCare, told Nashville Public Radio that seven providers, including Planned Parenthood, would be prohibited from participating in TennCare. Tanksley declined to identify the other providers.

“I cannot disclose that,” Tanksley said. “Under state law, that is confidential information about reports made to the state regarding abortions, and the identity of the providers is confidential.”

CMS responded to Tennessee officials’ request on Friday to say that the agency had “completed a preliminary review” of the request and “determined that the state’s amendment request has met the requirements for a complete amendment.”

The amendment application has been posted online for public comment, and as of Wednesday only 65 responses were posted. One of the public comments charged that Tennessee “is effectively making abortion services unavailable to the Medicaid insured population. … It is a gross overstep of the state to believe they know more about any women’s health decision than the woman herself. Passing this amendment will only serve to put more women’s lives at risk.”

Another commenter said this anti-choice effort is “not about abortion services as we know federal funds are not used for abortion services. It is about abridging the rights of citizens, particularly women, and this should never be the role of government.”

The public comment period will end on September 23.

After reviewing the public comments, CMS will make a final determination on Tennessee’s request.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/08/29/tennessee-republicans-ask-for-trumps-help-in-defunding-planned-parenthood/

Activists who want church-state separation are staging public withdrawals from the Catholic Church, a new web tool uses emojis to pinpoint legislators’ abortion stance, and the fight to change the law may advance the case for sex education.

On August 9, Argentina’s Senate rejected a bill that would have legalized abortion during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Instead of feeling downtrodden, pro-choice activists are retooling and finding ingenious ways to keep the abortion issue at the forefront. From staging public renunciations of the Catholic Church, deploying social media to hold anti-abortion legislators accountable, and using the debate to advance comprehensive sexual education, they are making lemonade from the defeat.

Dating from the 1920s and before women had the right to vote, the country’s penal code outlaws abortion except when the woman’s health is jeopardized or if a person with mental or cognitive disabilities was raped. In the staunchly Catholic country, women who seek abortions can be punished with up to four years in jail, though prosecutions seem rare.

“We must campaign for [abortion legalization] and demand it, now more than ever,” María Leticia Cazeneuve, a member of Feminist Translators and Interpreters From Argentina. It’s one of many independent associations forming part of the national campaign for the legalization of abortion in Argentina.

Like many of the thousands of activists who donned green handkerchiefs to show their support for legalizing abortion, Cazeneuve was disappointed by the vote but sees it as a mere bump on the road toward legalization. The bill had already passed the lower house by a narrow margin, exceeding the expectations of local campaigners. Rather than hanging up their green handkerchiefs, pro-choice Argentine women are tying them to their school bags, purses, and getting things done.

Because the Senate vote highlighted how Catholic and evangelical groups influenced lawmakers to vote against abortion access (Argentine-born Pope Francis reportedly weighed in), some Argentines were alarmed at misinformed and religion-based arguments presented before the Senate vote. As a result, pro-choice activists found not-so-unlikely partners in advocates who want greater church-state separation. The latter have donned their orange handkerchiefs and taken to the streets alongside the abortion-rights movement—but have also distinguished themselves with their own rather unorthodox initiatives.

The Argentine Coalition for a Secular State (CAEL, for its Spanish acronym) has stepped in with their increasingly popular and public actions of collective apostasy—helping people publicly defect from the Catholic Church.

Marcela Brusa of CAEL explained that “this pressure [from the church] made it clear for a lot of people that, although the church has every right to not support the bill, they do not have the right to legislate on civil matters.”

CAEL members have set up stands on the streets of cities such as Buenos Aires, Mar del Plata, and Mendoza to inform fellow citizens of their right to renounce the church and why they should do it. Volunteers help willing Argentines walk through the process and submit the official apostasy forms to the diocese in each person’s name. They also educate passersby about how to formally withdraw from the church rolls if they want to do it themselves.

Since the August vote, CAEL says that at least 2,000 Argentines fed up with the church’s grip on the country’s lawmakers have disassociated themselves from the Catholic Church.

Renouncing the church sends a very clear message to religious leaders, but also puts a dent in the coffers of the dioceses, which aren’t taxed by the state and receive benefits and allowances based on the number of faithful they have on their dockets.

This invigorated movement is also bringing tongue-in-cheek ingenuity to online activism, too. One developer has created an extension for web browsers that adds a green heart next to the name of representatives and senators who voted in favor of legalizing abortion whenever they come up on the user’s online searches. Legislators who voted against get a poop emoji.

The goal is to make it easier for users to rapidly recognize allies while reading up on politics and getting ready to vote in the 2019 national elections, ensuring citizens are clear on what their political representatives stand for and to make it easier to vote anti-choice politicians out.

While the anti-choice movement is claiming success in gutting the Senate vote, the ongoing abortion debate has strengthened the case for the national Comprehensive Sexual Education program (ESI). The anti-choice movement has traditionally opposed including sexual education in public school curricula, but it was cornered into a Catch-22 of its own making as the abortion measures moved through the legislature.

The movement had to publicly admit that in order to reduce the occurrence of clandestine abortions and “save lives” as they said they intended to do, children must be taught sex ed early on.

Cazeneuve said,“There is no turning back with the implementation of the ESI. We’ve been long calling for it. [Some] people who wear the blue handkerchief [of the anti-choice movement] seem to have just realized that it needs to be urgently enacted.”

The Senate’s vote against legalizing abortion is rippling through the country—and even the national body that regulates drug use and safety. Argentina’s equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—the National Medicines, Food and Medical Technology Authority (ANMAT)—authorized the consumption and manufacture of misoprostol in the country after the Senate vote, making sure to note that it is intended to be used “for gynecological or obstetric purposes.” Misoprostol is a drug commonly used in obstetric care; it can be used to induce abortions safely, and it’s often combined with the drug mifepristone for a highly effective way to end a pregnancy.

Since the ANMAT announcement, various laboratories have committed to manufacturing it on Argentine soil. One laboratory in Santa Fe province hopes to have its first batch ready by December, with another in Rio Negro province closely following in 2019. This is not by chance. These two provinces have historically been liberal in making abortions available in public hospitals by interpreting health endangerment to include mental health and overall well-being.  The medication will be dispensed to hospitals throughout both provinces and administered by doctors, but not available for sale in pharmacies.

Yet another step in the right direction might be coming. President Mauricio Macri had promised to present a draft reform to decriminalize abortion on August 21. Although merely a short-term solution, this proposal was supposed to guarantee that women found guilty of undergoing abortions would no longer be punished for it—although this would tentatively be at a judge’s discretion. Yet on the given date, nothing was presented, and rumors speculated that the president believed it was too soon to suggest reforms to the penal code.

His action may have been delayed by an August 19 filing by the the most prominent anti-choice group nongovernmental organization in Argentina, Más Vida, which lodged a complaint to stop abortion decriminalization through constitutional reform.

In the meantime, three Argentine women have died of complications from clandestine abortions since August 9. The most publicized case was that of “Elizabeth,” a mother of two who attempted a self-induced abortion using parsley.

Despite the challenges, activists remain confident and celebrate each small step taken toward legalization. “It will be law!” they still chant, with its Spanish hashtag #seraley firing up social media. The struggle is alive and well, with change slowly seeping in.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/08/28/undaunted-by-senate-loss-argentine-abortion-advocates/

A federal appeals court on Wednesday reportedly upheld a lower court’s ruling barring Alabama from prohibiting a certain kind of abortion.

The ban, which was struck down by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson in October, criminalized an abortion method that is the most common way of ending pregnancies after 15 weeks.

The court wrote Wednesday that existing Supreme Court decisions bar Alabama from entirely forbidding the “dilation and evacuation” method of abortion.

“In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it. As one of the ‘inferior Courts,’ we follow its decisions,” the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in the Wednesday ruling, according to AL.com. “Our role is to apply the law the Supreme Court has laid down to the facts the district court found.”

Alabama state legislature passed the original ban in 2016, banning what is known in the state as “dismemberment” abortions.

Thompson blocked the law in October in response to a lawsuit from the West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa and the Alabama Women’s Center in Huntsville, but the state appealed the ruling.

Thompson said in the October ruling that the law effectively criminalized abortion after 15 weeks, and imposed an “impermissible burden on a woman’s ability to choose an abortion.”

The appeals court’s decision also noted that more than 90 percent of abortions in the state are performed before 15 weeks of pregnancy, and do not use the dilation and evacuation method.

Source: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/abortion/403081-appeals-court-upholds-ruling-barring-alabama-from-prohibiting

The future of reproductive rights in six states likely hinges on who is elected governor in November, as a state’s top lawmaker is instrumental in the decision to keep pre-Roe abortion bans intact or codify abortion rights into law.

The possibility that, if confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh could help dismantle Roe v. Wade raises the stakes in gubernatorial races across the country this year.

That’s because if Roe is overturned, access to abortion will be determined by state law, giving both governors and legislatures enormous power over the rights and health of women everywhere. People in nearly half the states would be at risk of losingaccess to abortion, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, due to anti-abortion laws already on the books. Four states have enacted “trigger bans” that would immediately outlaw abortion if Roewere overturned. An additional 10 states have pre-Roe bans (also known as “zombie laws”) still on the books—and Louisiana has both. Some zombie laws could go into effect immediately, while others would require further action before becoming enforceable.

But the future of reproductive rights in six states likely hinges on who is elected governor in November, as a state’s top lawmaker is instrumental in the decision to keep pre-Roe bans intact or sign abortion rights into law.

President Trump vowed on the campaign trail to appoint justices to the Court willing to overturn Roe. His pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy has signaled in past rulings that he would vote against abortion rights, worrying abortion rights advocates that Trump has followed through on his campaign promise. That means governors could soon be in a position to determine whether or not abortion is a criminal offense.

Here are the states where abortion is essentially on the ballot in this year’s gubernatorial races.

Kansas

The right to a legal abortion is at “high risk” in Kansas should Roe fall, according to a state-by-state analysis by the Center for Reproductive Rights. That’s because of the state’s anti-choice majority in the legislature and the state code’s recognition of “fetal rights.” A 2007 law that defines murder and other violent crimes says that the rights guaranteed to any person also extend to an unborn child, which the law defines as “a living individual organism” in utero “at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth,” though it protects against being used against those who have an abortion. A subsequent law passed in 2013 includes broader “personhood” language. This language could open the door to full rights of so-called personhood for blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses, making abortion illegal under any circumstances, including during imminent threats to the life of a pregnant person.

Though abortion is currently legal nationwide, Kansas lawmakers have already begun to chip away at that right. Abortion is banned after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and anyone seeking the procedure must obtain an ultrasound and counseling beforehand. Telemedicine abortion—through which a doctor can provide medication abortion to a patient via remote consultation—is also illegal in the state, despite the safety and efficacy of this method in early abortion care.

In the absence of Roe, the law’s protection of “fetal rights” could mean the state could begin prosecuting anyone who obtains an abortion, unless abortion rights are codified into state law—and the next governor could potentially help lead the fight to pass such legislation. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Laura Kelly will face Republican Kris Kobach on the November ballot. Kelly has the endorsement of reproductive rights groups because of her record voting to uphold abortion rights while serving in the Kansas State Senate.

Although Kobach described himself as pro-choice nearly two decades ago, he says he’s changed his views and has vowed to make abortion illegal in Kansas if elected. “Roe v. Wade‘s days are numbered and Planned Parenthood will be coming state by state to legalize abortion. When they come to Kansas I will fight back and protect Kansas values,” Kobach tweeted last month. “I am 100% pro-life and I have been endorsed by Kansans for Life.”

The Cook Political Report considers the race a toss-up, and Democrats see Kobach’s nomination as an opening to flip the Kansas governor’s mansion from red to blue. As the New York Times notes, “A Kobach candidacy, while pleasing to his party’s most conservative core, would energize liberals and moderates” both in the gubernatorial race and in certain U.S. House districts.

Michigan

Michigan has a pre-Roe abortion ban on the books, so the next governor could ultimately decide whether or not the procedure is legal within the state’s borders by choosing whether to enforce that law or lead an effort for its repeal. The 1931 law, though currently not enforceable, makes it a felony “to procure the miscarriage” of a fetus unless the pregnant person’s life is in danger.

Although a campaign spokesperson for Republican gubernatorial nominee Bill Schuette told the Detroit News that Schuette wouldn’t engage “in hypotheticals about future Supreme Court decisions,” he said he would “enforce the laws on the books, just as he does now as attorney general” if he was elected governor. Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Gretchen Whitmer has promised, if elected, to defend a woman’s right to choose and released a plan for how she would do so if the Supreme Court sends the issue back to the states. Step one: moving to repeal the so-called “zombie law” that would criminalize abortion.

“As governor, should Roe v. Wade be overturned, Gretchen will work with everyone who wants to protect and expand women’s reproductive health by passing legislation that will enshrine Roe v. Wade into state law,” said Nicole Simmons, Whitmer’s press secretary, in a statement to Rewire.News. “Right now, she’s working to pull every Democrat across the finish line this November so we can get it done and protect women and families across the state.”

The current governor, Republican Rick Snyder, is retiring as the 10th least-popular governor in the nation following the Flint water crisis. In a poll taken by NBC News and Marist College before the August 7 primary, Whitmer beat Schuette in a hypothetical matchup by 9 percentage points.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s abortion restrictions include forced counseling followed by a 72-hour waiting period, a ban on telemedicine abortion, and a ban on abortions after 20-weeks of pregnancy. But if Roe is overturned, that would trigger a law dating back to 1910 that criminalizes abortion except in cases of life endangerment.

Ahead of the Republican primary runoff election on August 28, neither GOP candidate has explicitly spoken about the pre-Roe ban. Both have vowed to restrict access to abortion, however. Former Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett, who received more votes in the June primary, said in a Republican debate in May that he would sign legislation banning all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment, NewsOK reported.

His runoff opponent, Kevin Stitt, said in the same debate that he wouldn’t sign legislation that allowed abortion under certain circumstances because he believes life begins at conception. In a previous forum, he said that he wants to make Oklahoma the most restrictive state in the nation when it comes to abortion.

While the Democratic nominee for governor, former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, hasn’t been vocal about protecting abortion rights, his campaign manager told NewsOK last month that he believes women should be able to make their own reproductive health decisions. “Those decisions are intensely personal and should not involve the Legislature,” his campaign manager said. Edmondson’s campaign did not return Rewire.News’ request for comment.

Although Democrats have flipped four state legislative seats since the 2016 election, the Cook Political Report rates the Oklahoma governor’s race as solidly Republican.

Pennsylvania

The Center for Reproductive Rights considers Pennsylvania “at risk” of banning abortion in the absence of Roe because state policy extends “equal protection of the laws” to the “unborn,” and states that Pennsylvania encourages “childbirth over abortion.” Similar language expanding the rights of fetuses has already caused the number of people in the United States sent to jail because of their actions during pregnancy to rise even with Roe intact, according to a 2008 study published by the University of Minnesota. Without Roe, Pennsylvania’s Republican-majority state legislature could enforce a fetus’ “equal protection” by outlawing abortion altogether.

In fact, efforts to restrict abortion access are already underway. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed a 20-week abortion ban in December that is fully supported by his Republican gubernatorial challenger, former state Sen. Scott Wagner. Earlier this year, Wagner supported another effort to ban abortion at the sign of a heartbeat—before many people realize they are pregnant—that Wolf promised to veto should it reach his desk. And Wagner co-sponsored a bill last year that sought to defund Planned Parenthood.

Wagner’s record shows he’s committed to restricting access to abortion, though he hasn’t taken an official stance on what action he would take if Roe fell. When local radio station WHYY asked what he would do if an abortion ban came across his desk last month, he responded: “It may, and whatever happens, happens. Right now, in this interview, I’m not committing to anything.” Wolf, on the other hand, promised to veto any abortion ban.

A June poll conducted by Franklin and Marshall College gave Wolf a 19-point lead over Wagner, with 45 percent of registered voters saying they believe Wolf is doing a good job as governor.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island lawmakers have twice failed to pass legislation codifying abortion rights into state law, and a pre-Roe ban on abortion remains on the books. Though it was once struck down in court, the fall of Roewould allow the state to seek a court’s approval to begin enforcing it, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Republican Allan Fung, the current mayor of Cranston, is incumbent Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo’s strongest challenger ahead of the September 12 primaries. Raimondo beat Fung in the 2014 gubernatorial race by a single-digit margin and similarly leads a recent WPRI 12/Roger Williams University poll by just two points.

Raimondo called out Fung last month for remaining quiet about his views on the Reproductive Health Care Act, the aforementioned legislation aimed at protecting abortion rights in the state in case the U.S. Supreme Court dismantles Roe. In a statement issued to the Providence Journal in May, Fung said he has “always respected a woman’s right to make a medical decision, but with common sense limitations that many of us can agree upon, including a ban on the disgusting practice of late-term abortions, having the option of a plan on the health care exchange that does not include abortion coverage, and parental notification for minors.”

Although Fung hasn’t vowed to criminalize abortion, he and other Republican candidates haven’t backed efforts to codify Roe into state law. Republican candidate and current state representative Patricia Morgan vocally opposed the bill last year, writing in a statement to Rhode Island Catholic that the bill “protects neither mothers nor their babies.”

As governor, Raimondo urged state lawmakers to pass the bill and called the battle over abortion access “more urgent and necessary than ever” after Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, WLNE-TV reports. Nevertheless, NARAL Pro-Choice America claims Raimondo is “mixed-choice,” in part because she signed a budget bill in 2015 that required insurers to offer health plans that omit abortion coverage. Nearly 9,000 Rhode Islanders subsequently lost abortion coverage, Rhode Island Public Radio reported.

Women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem and former NARAL President Kate Michelman also signed an open letter endorsing one of Raimondo’s Democratic challengers—former Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown—specifically because of the current governor’s record on reproductive rights. Raimondo is expected to win the Democratic nomination despite the criticism.

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, a 19th-century abortion ban could once again be enforceable if Roe falls, making it a felony offense to perform an abortion. The procedure is already heavily restricted in Wisconsin; abortion is banned after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and telemedicine abortions are banned outright. Anyone seeking an abortion before 20 weeks must first attend counseling, undergo an ultrasound, and adhere to a 24-hour waiting period. But if the pre-Roe ban sprang back into effect, it would override these restrictions to outlaw abortion altogether—that is, unless the next governor of Wisconsin works with state lawmakers to keep abortion legal.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker is seeking re-election on the same anti-choice platform he’s maintained since taking office in 2011. Although Walker has said he doesn’t foresee the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe, he has a long record of supporting legislation to chip away at abortion rights. Under his tenure, the state approved a 20-week abortion ban that doesn’t include exceptions for rape or incest; forced abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital (a practice later deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court); withheld all state funds from Planned Parenthood; prohibited private insurance plans from covering abortion services; and restricted abortion coverage for public workers.

His Democratic opponent, Tony Evers, vows to work with the state legislature to undo the pre-Roe ban. “Government shouldn’t be making personal health decisions for women and we shouldn’t be treating physicians like criminals. Women’s lives will be jeopardized,” he tweeted in June. “We must remove this ban from our statutes.”

It’s a close race, as a Public Policy Polling survey released last week showed Evers ahead by five points. Walker was ranked the eighth least popular governor in America by Morning Consult in April, yet the Cook Political Report still considers the race leaning in Walker’s favor.

Non-violent protest should be on the table ahead of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing.

In this op-ed, Erin Matson, co-founder and co-director of Reproaction, explains why civil disobedience should be on the table when it comes to preserving abortion rights.

For abortion opponents, Brett Kavanaugh is — to borrow the parlance of baseball — somewhat of a closing pitcher. While there have been other justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and end the federal constitutional right to abortion, Kavanaugh’s decisions on reproductive rights have anti-abortion groups strongly supporting his nomination. For that reason, many have noted that he could be the one to shut it all down. Nominated to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had been a swing vote in favor of protecting abortion, Kavanaugh would turn the court into an enduring five-vote majority — an all-male majority — opposed to abortion rights. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that made outright abortion bans unconstitutional, the threat to maintaining that decision in the United States has never been this pronounced. Congress can’t be counted on to save us, as we’ve seen legislators fail us before, letting laws critical to our health lapse. As the nomination hearings begin, we need to keep that in mind. That’s why strategic, non-violent civil disobedience needs to be on the table.

The conventional paths to stopping this nomination seem slim. Yes, everyone should call their Senators and demand a “no” vote during the confirmation hearings, which begin on September 4, and to delay the confirmation vote until after the midterm elections later this year. But the balance of power is ominous. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) previously triggered a rules change, destroying the filibuster in order to confirm Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch. Without the possibility of filibuster, only a 51-vote majority is required to confirm Kavanaugh, and Republicans hold 51 seats in the Senate (though it’s not clear whether Sen. John McCain will return to Washington for the vote, as he’s been away following treatment for brain cancer). In order to block his confirmation, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) would need every Democrat and two Republicans to vote no.

But, a handful of Democrats are considered vulnerable to voting for Kavanaugh. And, self-proclaimed “pro-choice” Republican Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have indicated they may vote to confirm Kavanaugh, even though Trump promised to nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

If Roe is overturned, some states may make abortion illegal, which is targeted persecution of women and people who can become pregnant. When abortion is made illegal, women may be more vulnerable to being imprisoned not just for abortion but for miscarriages and pregnancy more broadly, as is the case in El Salvador where abortion is punishable by up to eight years in prison and women have been incarcerated for stillbirths and miscarriages. It is already happening here. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has documented that more than 1,200 women have been arrested in the United States in relationship to their pregnancies and pregnancy outcomes between 1973 and 2018. That number could rise if Roe is overturned, because we know that banning abortion doesn’t end abortion — it simply ends the legal ones.

We do not need to calmly accept this. Non-violent civil disobedience is a peaceful refusal to comply with laws as a form of political protest; it has a long tradition within civil and human rights movements. If lobbying, marches, and rallies do not work, we may indeed have a collective moral obligation to resist the dystopia of criminalizing pregnancy in ways that break the law.

Non-violent civil disobedience to resist a Trump nominee to overturn Roe could look like any number of things: Blocking streets so that Senators are not able to get in to vote or attend an in-district event with constituents. Refusing to leave Senate office buildings until Senators commit to blocking the nominee or individuals are arrested, whichever comes first. Chaining human bodies to federal office buildings. Disrupting confirmation hearings. Doing the work relentlessly, in repetition, and being mindful that some bodies are arrested more safely than others, and that this work best begins with frank conversations about identity, privilege, and oppression.

If Roe is overturned or gutted, it is certain that some states will propose and enact new abortion bans. Again, non-violent civil disobedience should remain on the table, this time targeting state and municipal-level lawmakers. We must remember that while in several contexts abortion rights supporters lack immediate political power — in spite of the fact that nearly seven in 10 Americans do not want to see Roe overturned — we always retain the power of using our bodies to slow or stop the machinery of state repression.

Ultimately, it is up to activists to decide — are we willing to break convention if lobbying fails? Are we willing to strategically expose ourselves to the risk of arrest? And if we are not, are we willing to look into the eyes of the future generations who will be incarcerated for abortions, miscarriages, and pregnancy complications?

Source: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/when-it-comes-to-abortion-rights-civil-disobedience-could-be-the-only-option

Protester at a pro-abortion demonstration in Buenos Aires. The text on her skin reads “Rich women abort, poor women die.” Image: AP

A 34-year-old woman died this week due to an at-home abortion gone wrong, Clarín reports. Elizabeth, as she has been reported, was the mother of a 2-year-old child, and her death is the first reported tragedy following the Senate’s decision to reject what would have been a historic bill to legalize abortion up to 14 weeks.

A crime since the late nineteenth century, abortion is the leading cause of maternal mortality in Argentina. Elizabeth’s case was harrowing, though not unfamiliar. In an attempt to induce an abortion, she inserted parsley in her vagina. That led to an infection which, despite the removal of her uterus at the local hospital and two days at two different facilities, led to her death the following day. This was reportedly her third abortion.

Per Newsweek:

The Network of Professionals for the Right to Decide, a group of pro-choice medical workers, announced Elizabeth’s death in a statement. They asked: “How many women and pregnant people will need to die [before lawmakers agree] that abortion must be legal, safe and free in Argentina?” Senator Eduardo Aguilar wrote on Twitter: “There might not be a law, but abortions will continue, and if it’s without a law, the woman’s life is at risk.”

They went on to say “we also hold authorities responsible for this death.” Including, but not limited to, governor of the province of Buenos Aires María Eugenia Vidal, who recently said she was “relieved” at the news that abortions would continue to be clandestine. As news of Elizabeth’s death spread in Argentina, this blame was echoed with the #ElSenadoEsResponsable hashtag—which translates as “The Senate is Responsible.”

According to Human Rights Watch, 40 percent of Argentine pregnancies end in abortion. Yet, abortion continues to be taboo and illegal (with the exception of cases of rape or grave risk to the mother or child). Broadly, poor women end up suffering most as they don’t have the means to get the proper care required and resort to tremendously dangerous alternatives instead.

The “Ni Una Menos” movement (Not One Less) has been vocal about this reality for the last three years and pro-choice advocates have organized large protests in support of a more progressive stance. The Catholic church and political leaders in Argentina were clearly shaken—but not moved.

Source: https://jezebel.com/argentine-woman-dies-in-first-reported-death-since-bill-1828356381