September 28, 2017

Kentucky’s pre-abortion ultrasound requirement struck down

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Story highlights

  • Kentucky HB2 required ultrasounds for pregnant women seeking an abortion
  • The state ordered the last open abortion clinic to close in March but a judge intervened

(CNN)A federal judge struck down a Kentucky anti-abortion law that required women to receive an ultrasound before they can legally have an abortion.

Western District of Kentucky Judge David Hale ruled Wednesday that the bill violates First Amendment rights and “appears to inflict psychological harm on abortion patients.”
“Requiring physicians to force upon their patients the information mandated by HB2 has more potential to harm the psychological well-being of the patient than to further the legitimate interests of the Commonwealth,” Judge Hale said in the ruling.
House Bill 2, enacted in January, required a physician or technician to perform an ultrasound, describe and display the ultrasound images to the mother, and provide audio of the fetal heartbeat to the mother before she could have an abortion. Its text said a pregnant woman may choose to avert her eyes from the images, and request the volume of the heartbeat be turned down or off.

ACLU lawsuit filed

The American Civil Liberties Union immediately filed a federal lawsuit over the ultrasound measure on behalf of Kentucky’s sole licensed outpatient abortion facility, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, three physicians, and their patients.
“HB2 requires physicians to subject their patients to these images, descriptions, and sounds, when the patient is in a particularly vulnerable and exposed position,” the complaint argued.
The bill was one of two anti-abortion measures signed into law in early 2017. It stipulated that physicians who violated the requirements would be subject to fines up to $250,000.
The second measure, Senate Bill 5, prohibits abortions in the state at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy. That law does not apply in cases where an abortion is required to save the life of the mother or prevent serious risk of bodily harm to the mother. It does not contain exceptions for cases involving rape or incest.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said the 20-week ban “is not just shameful — it’s dangerous for women.”
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin supported the anti-abortion laws — which were pushed by the Republican-majority Senate.
“This is truly a new day in Kentucky,” Bevin said in a press release after signing the two bills.
Ingrid Duran, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, was quoted on the organization’s website saying the legislation “sets a tone for the 2017 session in all states: that the unborn child deserves protection.”
Judge Hale wrote in his decision memorandum, that HB2 “overtly trumpet[s]” the anti-abortion preference of the legislature and is ideological in nature.”

One abortion clinic in the state

One of the plaintiffs in the case, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, had its license revoked in March for what the state cited as a deficiency in its agreements. EMW is the only abortion clinic operating in Kentucky. After its license was revoked, the center filed a lawsuit against the governor’s administration, which resulted in a trial.
The clinic was granted a temporary restraining order so it could remain open until a judge ruled in the case, but after a three-day trial earlier this month, the fate of the clinic still hangs in the balance.
Attorneys agreed to submit final written arguments to US District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky Greg Stivers within 60 days of the trial’s conclusion, and the judge’s verdict will follow in the weeks or months after that. There is no timeline for when Stivers plans to deliver a verdict.
Bevin’s general counsel and defense attorney in the trial, Steve Pitt, said the statute was adopted to “protect the health and safety of women.”
 

September 27, 2017

A Q&A With One of the Men Calling Bullshit on Anti-Choice Legislation in Illinois

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
1 Comment 

“When a man chooses to be silent on reproductive rights, he is choosing complacency with inequity,” says Blake Kelley, a Men4Choice board member.

Oren Jacobson, co-founder of Men4Choice, speaking at the launch party for the #CallBullshit campaign. Oren spoke about Men4Choice’s mission and vision and how men could get involved with the campaign by volunteering to knock on doors and host house parties.
 Men4Choice

People across the country are banding together to fight against anti-choice legislation, and Illinoisians are no exception. As Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) is set to decide the fate of a bill that would expand abortion coverage to Medicaid users and state employees, his male constituents are helping sound the alarm about his apparent abandonment of pro-choice promises.

Men4Choice, a concerned group of pro-choice allies, and the Illinois-based Personal PAC have launched a regional campaign, aptly titled #CallBullshit, to engage men on reproductive rights issues. As the campaign’s website says, “Men don’t have to put up with this bullshit. Why should women?”

In addition to putting pressure on Gov. Rauner to sign HB 40, the campaign aims to get men actively involved in a variety of abortion-related concerns, including a judge’s decision to halt an Illinois abortion notification law and the dearth of clinics in the middle of the country.

Rewire spoke with Blake Kelley, a Men4Choice board member, about the campaign, how men can be better allies and activists, and more.

Rewire: Reproductive rights have long been under attack, both nationally and in Illinois, where the #CallBullshit campaign is focused. Was there a specific incident that led Men4Choice and Personal PAC to galvanize and launch this campaign?

Blake Kelley: It’s no secret that historically, men haven’t been there to help women in the fight for their bodily autonomy. That hasn’t changed in the age of social media activism. It seemed whenever there was an attack on reproductive rights, women were the only ones talking about it, despite the fact that 75 percent of men in Illinois say they’re pro-choice. #CallBullshit is meant to specifically target these men, to encourage them to get educated and use their privilege to #CallBullshit on anti-choice policies.

Rewire: Why it is important for men to be involved in reproductive rights activism? And what role should they play as they get involved in this work (to avoid mansplaining an issue women have been working on for centuries)?

BK: Men need to get involved because bodily autonomy is a human right. When a man chooses to be silent on reproductive rights, he is choosing complacency with inequity. Silence is being comfortable with the privilege of not having to be concerned about the government regulating their bodies or the health risks of pregnancy.

Men need to understand foremost that their role in this fight is to be the support. This starts by listening; cis men [men who were assigned male at birth] will never have the same experiences women have when it comes to reproductive rights. But men can use their privilege to maximize women’s experiences and elevate their voices.

Rewire: What do you suggest to those men who are new to this space and want to create change under an aggressively anti-woman regime without perpetuating that same sexist, misogynistic ideology?

BK: Listen, get educated, and show up. Men can’t just show up one day and think they have the answers. We need to realize that we are new to this fight and there’s work we need to do: Educate ourselves, do our homework, and show up to support. Men can be supportive of women leaders and women-led organizations in this movement by showing up to knock on doors, being an abortion clinic escort, donating, sharing women’s voices on social media, and engaging with their male friends on why it’s important to be actively pro-choice. This also means calling out their buddies when they make a comment that is sexist or misogynistic.

Finally, chances are, men are going to make mistakes as they get involved. It’s going to happen and men need to learn to acknowledge mistakes, listen to the women who lead this movement, and learn to be better allies.

Rewire: What has the community’s response been to the campaign? Are men proactively and enthusiastically participating, or do you find it difficult to rally men on the issue?

BK: We’ve been blown away by the support. Men and women from all walks of life, including a lot of people we weren’t expecting, have come out to join the effort. We were excited to see roughly 100 people attend our #CallBullshit campaign launch in August. We’ve had over 12,000 one-on-one conversations with voters about reproductive rights. We’ve seen millions of impressions on social media and we’re just getting started.

Rewire: The campaign website lists several ways for men to #CallBullshit, such as by hosting parties and signing petitions. Are there specific actions that seem to engage men more than others? Why do you think this is?

BK: We all have different strengths. Some men are more comfortable talking about reproductive rights with their pro-choice buddies and some are comfortable talking about it with strangers when they go door to door. I think what’s important is creating multiple avenues to get men involved, to allow people to engage the way they think they can utilize their strengths. Once they get involved, people usually branch out and grow as activists.

Rewire: In your experience—with the #CallBullshit campaign or otherwise—what are the best ways to engage male allies in fighting for abortion access?

BK: In my experience, men aren’t engaging because they aren’t knowledgeable about the recent attacks on reproductive rights, and they don’t understand how to talk about the issue as a partner and an ally.

When I tell guys about the current trigger law in Illinois—which could make abortion and contraceptives illegal [and which HB 40 would overturn]—they almost always want to know more and how they can help. There are a lot of progressive, pro-choice men out there who don’t know what’s going on and don’t know the right way to engage as allies. Unfortunately, it’s not commonplace for a group of men to talk about abortion. But when one guy brings it up, it allows them to ask the questions they might have otherwise been uncomfortable asking before. We are here to instigate those conversations and teach men how to engage in those conversations the right way.

Rewire: Are there any plans to expand the campaign, perhaps regionally or nationally?

BK: Men4Choice is currently an Illinois-focused organization, but obviously, we’re not the only state where choice is in jeopardy or under attack. Men4Choice is just one small niche part of this giant pro-choice movement that we are seeing across the country. We know there are men in other states that care about these issues and would love to get them engaged, too.

Rewire: You have an event, called “Ma’am Up,” on Thursday. Tell us all about it!

BK: As someone who is queer, I’m really excited about our “Ma’am Up” event, focused on getting the LGBTQ community engaged. The event is in the heart [of] Boystown, the first officially recognized gay neighborhood in the United States. We will have speakers from LGBTQ-focused organizations there to show community support. The reality is LGBTQ rights and reproductive rights are not exclusive. This is a great opportunity to talk about the intersection of those identities, how it affects different people, and how we can work to bring both communities together.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/09/27/qa-one-men-calling-bullshit-anti-choice-legislation-illinois/

 

September 27, 2017

Abortion bans around the world

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 
 

September 26, 2017

Federal judge permanently blocks Indiana abortion limits

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt’s decision, issued Friday, found that those two provisions and a third one are unconstitutional. She granted an order permanently blocking all three from being enforced and granted summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, which had sued the state in April 2016 after then-Gov. Mike Pence signed the provisions into law.

The three restrictions violate women’s due process rights under the Constitution and conflict with rulings by numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, upholding a woman’s right to seek an abortion before a fetus could viably survive outside the womb, Pratt wrote in her ruling.

“The challenged anti-discrimination provisions directly contravene well-established law that precludes a state from prohibiting a woman from electing to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability,” the judge wrote.

Pratt’s order makes permanent her preliminary order issued in June 2016 — a day before the law was set to take effect — that temporarily blocked the provisions from being enforced.

Indiana is now permanently barred from enforcing a restriction that would have banned abortions sought because of a fetus’ genetic abnormalities, race, gender or ancestry. Pratt’s order also permanently blocks a requirement that abortion providers tell women that Indiana prohibits such abortions, and another provision that would have required that aborted fetuses be buried or cremated.

As for the fetal disposal provision, Pratt wrote that she could find no legal basis for Indiana to require health care providers “to treat fetal remains in the same manner as human remains.”

“Stated otherwise, if the law does not recognize a fetus as a person, there can be no legitimate state interest in requiring an entity to treat an aborted fetus the same as a deceased human,” she wrote.

Attorney General Curtis Hill said Monday in a statement that he’s disappointed by Friday’s ruling and plans to appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Indiana’s then-Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, did not appeal Pratt’s June 2016 order temporarily blocking the provisions.

Current Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill said Monday that he’s disappointed by Friday’s ruling and plans to appeal the order to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Hill said in a statement that the ruling clears “the path for genetic discrimination that once seemed like science fiction.” He added that the law’s fetal disposal provision “is hardly an impingement of anyone’s individual rights.”

Christie Gillespie, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, praised Pratt’s ruling and said the group was confident the judge would find that the restrictions violate the Constitution.

“There is no medical basis for these restrictions. This is just another example of politicians coming between physicians and patients,” she said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-indiana-abortion-ruling-20170925-story.html

 

September 26, 2017

Government Watchdog: Anti-Choice Group Misused Millions from Taxpayers

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

“In its zeal to defund Planned Parenthood, Texas has wasted money on a group that is misappropriating taxpayer funds and providing no services, leaving women without access to health care.”

Responding to the accusations, Everett told the Dallas Morning News, “We’re here, our books are open, we’re not hiding from anyone. We’re not hiding anything, or from anyone.”
 Governor Perry / YouTube

Abortion is among the safest medical procedures in the United States. Yet, myths about its safety abound. False Witnesses reveals the individuals behind these lies.

Texas has funneled millions to the anti-choice Heidi Group that a watchdog organization now accuses of breaking the law by misusing taxpayer funds.

The Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit government watchdog, filed a complaint Tuesday with the Travis County District Attorney alleging the Heidi Group committed theft under state criminal law by taking state money for services the group never provided.

“Texas taxpayers deserve to know where their hard-earned money has gone,” Katie O’Connor, the Campaign for Accountability’s legal counsel, said in a statement.

Texas officials contracted with the Heidi Group to provide $7 million in family planning services to families with low incomes when it barred health-care provider Planned Parenthood from the state health-care program. Reports showed the Heidi Group shifted the money to anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers, or fake clinics. A six-month investigation by the Campaign for Accountability found the Heidi Group misspent the money.

“Prosecutors should look into whether the Heidi Group and its founder and executive director, Carol Everett, misappropriated taxpayer funds by failing to deliver the services pledged in state contracts, but nevertheless continued to submit reimbursement requests,” O’Connor said.

Campaign for Accountability officials filed a complaint with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, asking the government to strip the Heidi Group of its tax-exempt nonprofit status. Through a public records request, the Campaign for Accountability discovered the Heidi Group had spent as much as 11 percent of its annual expenditures in one year on the “Heidi Group Cruise.” The anti-choice organization allegedly engaged in unreported lobbying and prohibited acts, such as electioneering and endorsing political candidates for state and federal office.

The complaint accuses the anti-choice group of a pattern of financial mismanagement, including operating for nearly a decade while technically insolvent. Since 2002, the Heidi Group has been in debt to its founder and CEO, Carol Everett, according to the complaint. Meanwhile, the Heidi Group has contracted with providers ineligible to receive state funds.

Responding to the accusations, Everett told the Dallas Morning News, “We’re here, our books are open, we’re not hiding from anyone. We’re not hiding anything, or from anyone.”

Such complaints are not new. Last year, critics called for an investigation of the Heidi Group, telling Rewire that Texas Health and Human Services Commission “just ignored the definition” of family planning clinics when it approved the Heidi Group contract.

After a critical Associated Press investigation this year, Everett told a deputy in Gov. Greg Abbott’s office: “No, we don’t look good, and no, we’re not doing what I planned to do, and no, we’re not doing what I wanted to do,” according to a voicemail the Campaign for Accountability obtained through an open records request.

The state said last month that it would cut the Heidi Group’s funding by $4 million after the organization failed to meet its own goals in providing family planning services to families. A spokesperson for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission told the Texas Tribune the funding cut was meant “to make sure we’re maximizing services for women.”

Amid reported problems, Texas continued to fund the Heidi Group, signing contracts in 2016 and 2017 worth $7 million, according to the Campaign for Accountability.

“In its zeal to defund Planned Parenthood, Texas has wasted money on a group that is misappropriating taxpayer funds and providing no services, leaving women without access to health care,” O’Connor, with Campaign for Accountability, said.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/09/26/government-watchdog-anti-choice-group-misused-millions-taxpayers/

 

September 25, 2017

Supreme Court May Step Into Fight Over Missouri Abortion Restrictions

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Attorneys for Planned Parenthood on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate an order blocking Missouri officials from enforcing two anti-abortion regulations.

“Many people don’t have the means to travel hundreds of miles or cross state lines to see a doctor, which means they simply go without care.”
 Lauryn Gutierrez / Rewire

Religious imposition laws are designed to shield private individuals and businesses from complying with nondiscrimination laws based on a religious objection to that service.

Attorneys on behalf of Planned Parenthood on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and reinstate a lower court ruling that blocks the State of Missouri from enforcing anti-abortion regulations the attorneys claim are nearly identical to those ruled unconstitutional in last year’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedtdecision.

The case involves two Missouri anti-abortion regulations. The first is a requirement that any doctor who provides abortion care—including medication abortions—have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. The second regulation requires that any facility providing abortions be licensed as a surgical center, even if the facility does not provide surgical abortions.

“As a doctor, I see just how hard it is on my patients when politicians put safe, legal abortion out of reach,” Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “Many people don’t have the means to travel hundreds of miles or cross state lines to see a doctor, which means they simply go without care. We’re in court because every person deserves the right to decide whether and when to become a parent, regardless of who you are or where you live.”

Attorneys for Planned Parenthood in 2016 filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Missouri, arguing that the requirements were unconstitutional under Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The district court blocked enforcement of the requirements in April 2017, ruling they were close enough to the Texas regulations at issue in Hellerstedt to be considered unconstitutional.

Attorneys for the State of Missouri appealed the district court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, asking it to stay the lower court’s order pending appeal. After a panel of judges on the Eighth Circuit declined to stay that order, attorneys for the state went to the full panel of Eighth Circuit judges, which agreed to stay the injunction.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch handles requests for the Eighth Circuit. He could decide on his own to accept or reject the appeal or pass it on to the full court for consideration. The Court could issue a ruling as soon as this week.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/09/25/supreme-court-may-step-fight-missouri-abortion-restrictions/

 

September 25, 2017

Pregnancy doctors back abortion on demand with no criminal sanctions

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
1 Comment 

The leaders of Britain’s pregnancy doctors have voted to support abortion on demand, despite a revolt from members.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists tonight formally demanded the full decriminalisation of terminations at any stage in a pregnancy.

The influential body will now lobby Government for a change in the law, aping the stance of Britain’s doctors’ union, the British Medical Association, which voted for decriminalisation in June.

The decision was made by the RCOG’s senior council behind closed doors, rather than in a ballot of its 6,000 members.

I strongly believe that the College has a responsibility to protect women’s health by ensuring access to this key healthcare serviceProfessor Lesley Regan, RCOG

The Royal College is not advocating a change to the current 24-week cut-off period for abortions, however it now wants this restriction governed by professional regulations, rather than the criminal law.

It means doctors performing terminations later in a pregnancy would face no criminal sanctions.

The current legal requirement for two doctors to sign off an abortion “on medical grounds”, for example on the basis that going through with a pregnancy might harm a woman psychologically, should be scrapped, according to the RCOG.

The vote was last night criticised by pro-life campaigners, who accused the Royal College of “betraying its members, women and their babies, and the medical profession”.

It took place despite a letter signed by more than 650 doctors objecting to president Professor Lesley Regan’s “extreme stance” on abortion and their lack of participation in the decision.

Professor Regan insisted that decriminalisation did “not mean deregulation”.

“I am pleased that the Council of our College has voted in support of removing criminal sanctions associated with abortion,” she said.

“I strongly believe that the College has a responsibility to protect women’s health by ensuring access to this key healthcare service.”

According to government statistics, there were 190,406 abortions carried out in England and Wales last year, slightly lower than the five-year high in 2015.

Critics of a change in the law have said it could open the floodgates to sex-selective terminations as well as putting women in abusive relationships at risk of coercion to end pregnancies.

Dr Anthony McCarthy, from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: “By supporting a campaign to trivialise abortion, i.e. a lethal attack upon an unborn child, the leadership [RCOG] has betrayed the Hippocratic principles and opened the door to a laissez-faire and in effect deregulated abortion industry.”

The RCOP has asked for feedback from its members on the subject, but their responses were not binding on the council members who voted.

A spokesman for the Royal College said 45 members of the council had taken part, but would not reveal the split, saying only the council voted “strongly in favour”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/22/pregnancy-doctors-back-abortion-demand-no-criminal-sanctions/

 

September 24, 2017

The Fascinating True Story Behind Elisabeth Moss’s New Movie About Abortion

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
1 Comment 

A day after Elisabeth Moss won an Emmy for her work in The Handmaid’s Tale, we learned that she will be starring in another project focused on women’s rights. Her upcoming movie Call Jane is based on the story of an underground network of women who provided abortions in the 1960s. The film is being directed by Simon Curtis (My Week With Marilyn) and production is set to begin in early 2018. Here’s what to know about the remarkable true story of — and real women behind — the Jane Collective.

Abortion in the 1960s

Before the Supreme Court cast its historic vote on Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion had long been illegal in the United States. The procedure was officially criminalized around 1880. According to Leslie Reagan, an expert on the history of abortion, this was the result not just of a moral stance on abortion and concern about its health risks, but also part of a broader political effort to limit a budding women’s rights movement.

Of course, the law did not deter women from seeking abortions — but it did make the procedure less safe. Abortions were performed in secret, oftentimes without the aid of a doctor or nurse. In the 1930s, the Great Depression led increasing numbers of women to seek illegal, and hence often risky, abortions in an effort to cope with dire economic conditions.

In the 1950s and ’60s, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegal abortions took place, accounting for at least 18 percent of pregnancy-related deaths during those years. Low-income women and women of color were the most affected, being the least likely to have the resources to pay for a safe operation or the ability to travel to other countries where abortion was legal. As author Patricia G. Miller has written in her book The Worst of Times, complications from botched or self-inflicted abortions were so common that most major hospitals had a “septic abortion ward.”

How the Jane Collective Was Created

The Jane Collective was founded in 1969 and was active until abortion was legalized in 1973. In 1965, Heather Booth, a student at the University of Chicago, learned that a friend’s sister was pregnant and “nearly suicidal.” Booth successfully found a doctor who would be willing to perform an abortion. She was subsequently flooded with so many similar pleas for help that she decided to get organized with other women in Chicago and founded the Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation in 1969. The group gained the code name “Jane” in underground circles and eventually grew to have around 100 members.

Initially, after offering abortion counseling, the Jane Collective secretly brought women to a safe house — sometimes even blindfolding the patients to ensure anonymity — where a doctor performed the procedure in safe conditions. Eventually, a small number of its members learned how to perform abortions themselves, which gave them more freedom and enabled them to keep costs down for the patients. One of the members, Laura Kaplan, has written that the group helped more than 10,000 women during its existence.

In 1972, seven members of the Jane Collective were arrested after a raid by law enforcement. They were indicted, but the charges were dropped after Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. Once abortion became legal, the group disbanded, its services no longer needed. Heather Booth continues to work as a political activist to this day.

In 1998, a documentary was made about the Jane Collective, and another feature film about the group, the indie Ask For Jane, reportedly began production in New York this Summer.

Why This Story Matters Today

Although abortion has been legal in the United States for more than four decades and the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade is highly unlikely, access to the procedure has been greatly limited due to a wave of state-level legislation in recent yeas. Conservative politicians continue to work to make it harder for women in certain states to find a doctor or facility that performs abortions. Texas is one of the worst offenders. In 2013, the state instituted a law that required doctors in abortion clinics to have hospital privileges and for clinics to follow unrealistic and often prohibitively costly hospital-level standards, which forced half of the state’s 40 clinics to shut down. Although the law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, Republicans in Texas are now pursuing other paths to restrict abortion, such as trying to pass a bill that would revoke most abortion doctors’ medical licenses.

Meanwhile, on a national level, President Donald Trump has suggested women should be “punished” for abortions and signed legislation in April to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, one of the largest providers of women’s health care in the country. Trump’s budget also proposes to cut all federal funding to the organization.

These actions by state politicians and the federal government to limit access to abortion reveal how fragile the rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade remain. Now is a fitting time to commemorate the true story of the Jane Collective with a film — both as a reminder of how things used to be and as a reminder that the fight for agency over our own bodies is far from won.

https://www.popsugar.com/news/Elisabeth-Moss-Abortion-Movie-Call-Jane-Jane-Collective-44049752

 

September 24, 2017

Women seeking abortions in UK outside formal healthcare system due to ‘insurmountable’ barriers, finds research

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Nearly one in five women cite controlling circumstances, including partner violence and partner or family control, as reason for not accessing formal abortion services

 

abortion.jpgDespite abortion being legally available in Britain, some women find it challenging or at times “impossible” to access abortion care through current service models, research finds Getty/istock

Women in the UK are seeking abortion services outside the formal healthcare system due to access barriers, privacy concerns and controlling circumstances, research has found.

New findings indicate that despite it being legally available in Britain, some women find it challenging or at times “impossible” to access abortion care through current service models.

Research from the University of Texas reveals that nearly half of women who sought abortions outside the formal framework cited long waiting times, distance to a clinic, work or childcare commitments and prior negative experiences of abortion care.

Privacy concerns including lack of confidentiality of services, perceived or experienced stigma and preferring the privacy and comfort of using pills at home also deterred women from the statutory healthcare system, with 30 per cent citing this as the reason.

Nearly one in five women (18 per cent) meanwhile said the reason involved controlling circumstances, including partner violence and partner or family control.

The peer-reviewed study, published in Contraception, an international reproductive health journal, examined the demographics and circumstances of all women requesting early medication abortion through the online telemedicine initiative Women on Web (WoW) over a four-month period.

It then analysed a sample of their anonymised emails to the service to explore their reasons for seeking help. During that time, 180 women reported 209 reasons for seeking abortion outside the formal health care setting.

Abigail Aiken, author of the report and an assistant professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, said current provision of abortion services in the UK made it “almost impossible” for women to access it.

“These are some of the most vulnerable women. Many of them have got a violent family or partner that controls them, which can make it almost impossible for them to get an abortion through the formal system,” she told The Independent.

“These are barriers that for some women are insurmountable. Many are in desperate situations. And there is a risk that these women resort to unsafe methods. We know from global studies that women who want and need abortions aren’t going to give up, and it could be dangerous.

“In the four months since I conducted the research, the number of women accessing the service has risen to 1,032. That’s a striking number of people given that we think we have a safe method for women. And these are only the ones we know about.”

Ms Aiken said that in order to ensure the most vulnerable and marginalised women are able to access safe abortions, a new approach is needed that will see the service delivered to them.

“This study shows that making health care services available does not automatically make them accessible or acceptable. To close the health care gap for the most vulnerable and marginalised, we need to find innovative ways to bring services to people where they are,” she said.

“We have to find some other way of providing for them from home – a more women-centred approach, which could see the service delivered to them.

“Our findings show that many women have already identified telemedicine as a viable way of obtaining early medication abortion. Making these services a reality would require a policy change to allow new models of service delivery.”

Clare Murphy, director of external affairs at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) described the figures as “staggering” and called for a “thorough overhaul” of abortion laws to ensure women are able to access the relevant care.

“The numbers of women in Britain seeking abortion pills online documented in this study are quite staggering‎, particularly given that it covers just one service over a four month period,” she said.

“It really underlines the need for a thorough overhaul of our abortion laws so that no woman faces clinically unnecessary obstacles in accessing care. It also concerns us deeply that women using pills bought online are at risk of life in prison if caught.

“Ultimately if we do not think that a woman who turns to online pills to end her own pregnancy should go to prison, we should no longer accept a law that says she should.

“As we prepare to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act next month, it’s high time to create a framework that meets the needs of women today, respects their ability to make their own decisions about their own pregnancies, and provides them with accessible high quality healthcare services to exercise that choice.”

A spokesperson for Marie Stopes International added: “In every country where we work, we are seeing increasing numbers of women buying abortion pills, either from pharmacies or online. Britain, where women have benefited from access to safe, legal abortion services for 50 years, is no exception to this global trend.

“In Britain, the number of women buying pills online remains a fraction of the 190,000 women each year who have an abortion through the NHS. However, any insight into the reasons why women are choosing a less safe method is valuable.”

Responding to the findings, a Department of Health spokesperson said: “All women who require abortion services should have access to high quality and safe care.

“It is a widely available procedure that is safe and regulated, with around 180,000 women accessing abortions a year. All abortion providers must have protocols in place for helping vulnerable groups. In addition to information on NHS Choices, there are also helplines set up to provide advice.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-abortions-uk-nhs-outside-formal-healthcare-barriers-immigration-right-free-treatment-a7957141.html

 

September 23, 2017

Republicans’ new health bill would hit women hardest, experts say

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Women would ‘bear the brunt’ of the bill’s funding cuts and weaker regulations, says policy analyst, with access to reproductive healthcare particularly affected

Lindsey Graham, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, speaks with the media.
 Lindsey Graham, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, speaks with the media. ‘The Graham-Cassidy bill is an assault on healthcare, period,’ says a policy analyst. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA

A new Republican attempt to reform the American healthcare system would have a disproportionate impact on women, experts have warned.

Republicans have pitched changes to the American health system which focus on “flexibility” for states to opt in or out of the coverage they believe they need.

But experts said funding cuts and weaker insurance regulations would leave more female patients worse off, hitting access to reproductive health hardest.

“The Graham-Cassidy bill is an assault on healthcare, period. But I really think women, particularly poor women, are bearing the brunt of this,” said Jessica Schubel, a senior policy analyst at the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At the heart of the bill, brought forward by the Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy, is a proposal to change how the federal government pays for health programs, handing over more control to states through finite budgets called “block grants”. States stand to lose up to $4tn over 20 years, the Washington DC-based consulting firm Avalere health estimated.

In a setback for the proposal on Friday, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, said she’s “leaning against” the bill, despite new pressure from her state’s GOP governor, Paul LePage, who cited research that the state could gain funding (while other states lose out). Collins, though, said there are lots of numbers floating around, and she’s awaiting an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before she makes a final decision.

Republicans have repeatedly attempted to undo the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, as part of a push to fulfill seven years of campaign promises and undermine a signature achievement of the Obama administration that provided health insurance to an estimated 20 million Americans.

Nevertheless, despite controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, Republicans have repeatedlyfailed to do so. Republicans hope to push this latest bill through the Senate within a week.

One of the most concerning provisions in the Graham-Cassidy bill, advocates said, was a push to defund the reproductive health provider Planned Parenthood.

The not-for-profit organization provides abortion services, which is why Republicans want to defund it. However, it also provides cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infection tests and contraceptive services at 650 clinics across the country. Planned Parenthood is already barred from using federal funds to provide abortion.

“The biggest issue is defunding of Planned Parenthood,” said Schubel. “In some areas, they’re the only game in town – so to speak – that’s affordable for low-income women.”

The bill would make Planned Parenthood ineligible for Medicaid funding, which pays for the care of many of the poor women who use the clinics.

In Texas, after Planned Parenthood was defunded, teen birth rates surged and up to thousands of women faced gaps in health coverage. Earlier this year, a public health expert told the Guardian: “I hate to say it, but I think an awful lot of women just opted to go without care.”

More negative impacts from Graham-Cassidy are dictated by simple demographics. Most people in America get insurance through their job, but many women receive benefits through their husband’s employer.

That means if women are widowed or divorced, they are at a greater risk of becoming uninsured. This risk would be even greater under the Graham-Cassidy bill, simply because of funding cuts. There would be fewer subsidies for private health insurance plans, and less money for Medicaid, a government health insurance program for the poor and disabled.

Further, proposed cuts to Medicaid could affect millions of pregnant women and elderly women who rely on the program. Almost half of all births in the United States are paid for by Medicaid, and four of five nursing home residents older than 85 are women, largely supported by Medicaid.

The Graham-Cassidy bill would also allow states to opt out of certain insurance regulations, such as a requirement that insurance companies offer maternity benefits. In that case, the annual cost to buy such coverage could be $17,000, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated in its appraisal of earlier Republican efforts to reshape healthcare.

“The whole thing is egregious,” said Katie Martin, vice-president of health policy and programs at the National Partnership for Women and Families. She called the bill “an absolute disaster for women and families who rely on affordable healthcare to thrive in society”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/22/republican-healthcare-bill-graham-cassidy

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »