Patients often have to fight for coverage, even if their plans include the procedure.

Demonstrators show support for Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights in Chicago, Illinois on February 10, 2017.
 Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Erika Christensen’s pregnancy ended at 32 weeks. But her fight to get her abortion covered by insurance had just begun.

In 2016, Christensen found out that the baby she was carrying had abnormalities that doctors called “incompatible with life.” “If it made it through birth, it would choke to death and die,” said Garin Marschall, Christensen’s husband. Christensen, now 36, and Marschall, 39, had very much wanted the child, which would have been their first. But after doctors gave them the bad news, they decided on abortion.

New York state, where they lived, bans the procedure after 24 weeks unless the mother’s life is at risk. Since there was no immediate risk to Christensen, she had to travel to a clinic in Colorado, one of only a few states with doctors who perform late-term abortions, an experience she has described in interviews at Jezebel. Her insurance covered abortion, but the clinic didn’t take it. So Christensen paid $10,000 out of pocket, which her mother withdrew from her 401k.

After the procedure, Christensen requested a reimbursement from her insurance company. She got back about $800. She asked the company to review the decision, which meant months of waiting and hours on the phone.

Ultimately, the insurance company reimbursed her around $3,000. The experience, so soon after the loss of a wanted pregnancy, prolonged her family’s pain and “kept us from being able to just start the grieving process,” Christensen said. “It felt like abuse to have these conversations again and again.”

Christensen’s experience is unusual in some ways — most abortions take place early in pregnancy and cost far less. But her struggle with insurance is surprisingly common — even insurance that ostensibly covers abortion may not actually pay for the procedure. That leaves patients scrambling to pay their bills out of pocket or even trying to do the procedure at home. And it leaves clinics with difficult choices, as Katrina Kimport and Brenly Rowland, researchers from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), a group at the University of California, San Francisco, note in a study released to the public Thursday. Given the insurance landscape, they write, “facilities might reasonably conclude that they cannot afford to take insurance and keep their doors open.”

Insurance coverage for abortion is often insufficient, even in states that allow it

Most people who get abortions pay out of pocket because they’re uninsured, they don’t want to go through their insurance (sometimes they’re worried an insurance bill could lead to family members finding out about the procedure), or their state restricts insurance coverage for abortion.

The Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal Medicaid funding to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life; 22 states have similar restrictions on state Medicaid funds. Meanwhile, 26 states restrict abortion coverage in private plans offered on the insurance exchanges, and 11 restrict abortion coverage in all private plans.

But even if patients have insurance that covers abortion, they or the clinic may end up footing the bill, according to the UCSF study. Kimport, a sociologist, and Rowland, an interviewer, talked to administrators in charge of 64 clinics in 21 states. They found that even in states where Medicaid was legally allowed to cover abortion, some Medicaid insurance providers declined to cover the procedure.

Private insurance presented similar roadblocks. In many states that don’t restrict private coverage of abortion, insurers can still choose whether to offer it or not. And some impose restrictions that conflict with the realities of abortion care.

One insurer would only pay for medication dispensed by a pharmacist, according to a doctor quoted in the study. But the FDA requires medication abortion, which accounts for nearly a third of all abortions, to be administered to a patient by a clinician, not a pharmacist. “I fought and fought” with one insurer to get medication abortion covered, said the doctor. After eight years of trying to challenge the rule, the doctor said, “I finally just gave up.”

Because of the way another insurer’s policies are written, abortion could only be reimbursed for patients over 12 years old, Kimport said. “When they had a patient who was under 12, there was simply not a way to get that reimbursed.”

For patients, insurance problems can have disastrous effects

When insurance companies fail to cover abortion, patients can suffer, especially if they live at or near the poverty line. They may need to delay while they get the money together, resulting in a later and costlier procedure, said Daniel Grossman, director of ANSIRH. The average cost of an abortion at 10 weeks is around $500; by 20 weeks, that rises to around $1,500. Financial obstacles can also push women to try to self-induce an abortion, potentially putting their lives at risk.

For low-income women, abortion costs can mean going without necessities. In her work with an abortion fund in California, Destiny Lopez, now co-director of the group All* Above All, saw women who were forgoing rent or food to pay for their abortions. “I vividly remember the day that I provided literally a tank of gas to a young couple that had to have a termination,” she said.

Even for those who are able to rely on family members for money, the experience of fighting with insurance companies can take a toll. Kate Carson had an abortion at 36 weeks after finding out that her daughter had a fatal brain abnormality. That meant coming up with $25,000 with just a weekend’s notice — her parents took the money out of their retirement account. Carson had insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield, but since she had to travel out of state, from Massachusetts to Colorado, her insurer only reimbursed her a small amount of the total. “Every bill that came in the mail and every refusal from insurance was like a knife in my heart,” she said.

A representative from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts said that employers decide which services their plans cover. If a service is covered and a patient receives it out of state, the reimbursement is typically based on how much a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in that state would pay.

Patients choose late-term abortion for a variety of reasons. Jenny, who asked that her last name not be used, decided to seek an abortion after she found out her baby had a major heart defect that would likely leave him in a vegetative state, dependent on a ventilator and feeding tube. “I’m a nurse and I know how this stuff goes,” she said. “I didn’t want him to have that quality of life.”

Christensen considered carrying her child to term, even though a previous surgery meant she would have to have a C-section. But she realized that he would probably die soon after delivery “if he even made it that far,” she told Jezebel. Ultimately, she said, “I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible.”

Insurance problems also put clinics at risk

The idiosyncrasies of insurance coverage for abortion also mean clinics may never get reimbursed for the abortions they perform. In states where Medicaid does cover abortion, reimbursement rates for the procedure are typically very low. The Medicaid reimbursement “doesn’t even come close to the expenditures” for an abortion, a counseling manager at one facility told Kimport and Rowland.

Medicaid reimbursements are low for many services, but since patients seeking abortions are disproportionately low-income, abortion clinics see an especially high percentage of patients with Medicaid. That means low reimbursement rates can pose a serious threat to a clinic’s survival. Some clinics have to make an uncomfortable choice between accepting Medicaid — and potentially going out of business — or declining the insurance so they can continue to see patients, Kimport and Rowland note.

Reimbursement rates are generally higher for private insurance, but the many restrictions and quirks involved mean clinics can never be sure if an insurer will pay them. “Providers are always rolling the dice,” said Kimport. Some practices choose not to accept private insurance — the Boulder Abortion Clinic, where Christensen had her abortion, has a contract with Kaiser but does not take other public or private insurance.

Meanwhile, some abortion practices have costs that neither public nor private insurance reimbursements truly reflect. Dr. Warren Hern, who performed Christensen’s abortion, estimates that 50 percent of what his patients pay goes toward security for his practice. “Pediatricians do not have to have armed guards and bulletproof windows,” he said. “We do.”

Changing the insurance picture starts with changing the law — but it doesn’t end there

Since their experience, Christensen and Marschall have become advocates for the Reproductive Health Act, which would make abortion after 24 weeks legal in New York state if the fetus is not viable or if the mother’s health is threatened. That would allow women in Christensen’s situation to stay in New York and get abortions from in-network doctors, making it more likely for insurance to cover the procedure. New York allows state Medicaid coverage for abortion, and most private insurers also cover the procedure, said Liz Krueger, a state senator and sponsor of the bill.

The Reproductive Health Act has passed the state assembly but not yet received a vote in the Republican-dominated state senate. Krueger is hopeful that it might move forward when the senate comes back into session in January 2018. Public opinion is on the bill’s side, she said, and in an election year, senators may be especially motivated to listen to their constituents’ concerns. The Trump administration has created anxiety and an appetite for change on many issues, she said. “There’s real momentum in New York state for voters to say, ‘We don’t trust Washington, we need this done here.’”

A few other states have recently passed similar laws. The Reproductive Health Equity Act, passed in Oregon this year, requires insurers, including the state’s Medicaid program, to cover abortion at no cost to the patient.

But one of the biggest barriers to insurance coverage for abortion around the country is the Hyde Amendment. Though it restricts only federal funding for abortion, it affects the private insurance markets as well, since many private insurers take their cues from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said Marschall, who has become something of an insurance expert since Christensen’s abortion.

The EACH Woman Act, introduced in the House in January, would repeal Hyde, allowing Medicaid recipients, government employees, and anyone else with government-sponsored health care to receive coverage for abortion. It would also bar states from banning abortion coverage in private plans on the exchanges.

There’s likely little appetite in the current Congress for repealing Hyde. But advocates for the bill are realistic about their approach, said Lopez. “We know that if we’re undoing 42 years of bad policy, it’s not going to take one Congress to fix that,” she explained. “What’s important about the bill is it allows us to have a conversation we haven’t had in this country about public and private insurance coverage of abortion.”

Even repealing Hyde wouldn’t necessarily fix the problem of low reimbursement rates, as Kimport and Rowland note. Simply allowing Medicaid to cover abortion wouldn’t mean that clinics would actually get reimbursed for the full cost of the procedure. But advocates are at work on the state level to try to raise rates, Lopez said. Sometimes that means working with groups trying to raise rates for other services, she added. “Some of these issues are larger than just abortion care.”

The barriers to change are many, but advocates like Christensen remain committed to the fight. Until New York changes its law, “I will feel like I’m not allowed to grieve,” she said. “I’m going to stay acutely angry and rageful until it’s made right.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/31/16229654/abortion-insurance-hyde-amendment

A federal judge on Thursday delayed for two weeks enforcement of part of a state law that bans the most common second-trimester abortion method

A hallway at the Whole Woman's Health clinic in Austin.
A hallway at the Whole Woman’s Health clinic in Austin.  Callie Richmond

A federal judge has temporarily stopped Texas officials from enforcing a ban on the most common second-trimester abortion procedure, just one day before the ban was set to go into effect.

Judge Lee Yeakel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a temporary restraining order Thursday, delaying enforcement of the ban until Sept. 14. It was originally set to go into effect Sept. 1.

Senate Bill 8, which passed during the 2017 regular legislative session, banned dilation and evacuation abortions — where doctors use surgical instruments to grasp and remove pieces of fetal tissue — unless the fetus is deceased.

Yeakel’s decision follows a Tuesday morning hearing during which attorneys for the state and reproductive rights groups sparred for an hour and a half about whether the order should be granted. With it in place, Texas doctors and health care providers can continue using the dilation and evacuation procedure – deemed the safest by medical professionals for second-trimester abortions — until a more permanent decision is made by the court.

Another hearing has been set for Sept. 14.

Without Thursday’s restraining order, Yeakel wrote in his decision, women and their doctors would be left “with abortion procedures that are more complex, risky, expensive, difficult for many women to arrange, and often involve multi-day visits to physicians, and overnight hospital stays.”

A spokesperson for the Texas Attorney General’s office said in a statement that the state’s top lawyer would “continue to defend our state’s legal right to protect the basic human rights and dignity of the unborn.”

Though the court’s decision Thursday offers a temporary respite to reproductive rights groups, it’s the latest in a series of legislative and legal challenges to abortion access in Texas. The lawsuit was filed in July by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood on behalf of several women’s health providers in the state.

Proponents of the ban have called dilation and evacuation “dismemberment abortion.” In court Tuesday, Darren McCarty, an attorney for the state, said the procedure is “brutal, gruesome” and runs counter to the “ethos of a humane and civilized society.” He said SB 8 does not ban the method; it just requires the “humane termination” of the fetus beforehand.

The “state did a good job of clarifying that technical distinction,” and spelling out its interest in protecting fetal life, John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, said after the hearing.

Lawyers for the health providers countered that making fetal demise a prerequisite would subject women to medically unnecessary and untested methods, and force them to make additional trips to the clinic. Doctors would face criminal charges for violating the ban; the only exception would be in cases of medical emergency.

Already, women seeking an abortion in Texas must have a sonogram performed 24 hours before receiving an abortion, a requirement women’s health advocates say is costly and burdensome.

“The provisions of SB 8 that we’re challenging criminalize a safe and common method of abortion,” said Molly Duane, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Politicians in Texas are trying to punish doctors who are using their best medical judgment.”

In court Tuesday, McCarty questioned the timing of the lawsuit’s filing, and argued it was a strategy to force the court to “rubber stamp” emergency relief days before the ban was slated to go into effect. Yeakel, agreeing, said he could see no reason why the suit couldn’t have been filed as soon as the governor signed the bill into law, and said its timing was a “real imposition” and put “maximum pressure” on the court to act at the last minute.

Yeakel also asked repeatedly what evidence legislators had considered before passing the law, and how Texas’ provision differs from similar bans that have been contested in other states. Laws like SB 8’s dilation and evacuation ban have been opposed or halted in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, according to a press release from the center. In court Tuesday, neither side pointed to substantive differences between Texas’ law and these others.

Duane said the new law is part of a “coordinated strategy by the state of Texas and by states around the country to ban abortion method by method, one restriction at a time, until it’s practically unavailable for women.”

In May, state lawmakers tacked the dilation and evacuation ban onto SB 8, a broader abortion measure that also prohibits hospitals and clinics from donating aborted fetal tissue to medical researchers, and requires facilities to bury or cremate fetal remains whether from abortions, miscarriages or stillbirths.

Seago, whose organization championed the provision, noted it originated as a separate bill and was discussed extensively by lawmakers. “This is not something that the legislature unknowingly did in the dark of the night,” he said.

This lawsuit is hardly the first time the state’s abortion policies have wound up in court. In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of a Texas law that required abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers — including minimum room sizes — and forced doctors performing the procedure to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Days after the high court’s decision, the state put forth a new rule relating to how fetal remains are disposed of.

A federal judge blocked that fetal remains rule in January, noting that it had been proposed “before the ink on the Supreme Court’s opinion” was dry. A month later, that same judge said Texas can’t kick clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood out of the state’s Medicaid program. The state is appealing both rulings.

Since the SB 8 lawsuit was filed in July, three new abortion-related measures were approved during the summer special legislative session and have been signed by the governor. Those new laws will increase reporting requirements for abortion complications, and require women to buy a supplemental insurance plan if they want coverage for an abortion – called a “rape insurance” policy by opponents.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/31/judge-temporarily-halts-abortion-procedure-ban/?utm_content=bufferfd6f6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Reproductive rights advocates charge that any single-payer health care push that doesn’t include abortion care falls short of real universal coverage.

When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) partnered for an overflowing health-care town hall in Michigan over the August recess, they shared more than a stage. The veteran lawmakers are leading the charge in Washington for universal health coverage.

More than 1,000 people packed the meeting that turned into a “rallying cry for progressives,” according to a Detroit Free Press report. Progressives recognize that health care is a human right. But do they recognize abortion care as health care, or will they sacrifice it for the sake of the quote-unquote greater good?

On Capitol Hill, Democrats have increasingly signaled their support for single-payer proposals in which the federal government covers health-care costs, regardless of income, job status, or health status.

The most popular ones propose expanding Medicare, the federal insurance program for people age 65 and older, to all. Conyers introduced his eighth iteration of a Medicare for All bill in the U.S. House of Representatives at the start of the current 115th Congress, and Sanders plans to unveil a U.S. Senate version after lawmakers return to Washington in early September, Rewire reported in July.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) recently sat down with Vox’s Sarah Kliff and Jeff Stein to discuss his forthcoming bill that would allow anyone to buy into Medicaid, the joint state-federal insurance program for people with low incomes, on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges.

A policy goal pursued by generations of progressive organizations and lawmakers, a nationalized health care system for all Americans, regardless of age or income, now receives the support of 33 percent of the country across party lines, according to a Pew Research Center poll from June. A full 60 percent broadly believes health care for all is the federal government’s responsibility. Of course, with a GOP-controlled Congress and White House committed to undermining coverage, single-payer health care will remain a dream for now. What proposals from Sanders, Conyers, and Schatz can do is show voters how the world should look when Washington emerges from unilateral rule by a Republican Party fiercely opposed to expanding quality health-care coverage.

There’s one hitch in these best-laid plans: Thanks to the Hyde Amendment, a congressional appropriations rider enacted into law every year since 1976, no federal funds—including the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements that a doctor receives for providing various health-care services—can cover abortion care except in rare circumstances. Hyde today disproportionately affects people with low incomes and people of color.

Under Medicare for All or another single-payer system, the discriminatory ban could apply to every person who moves off their private insurance into a public option that’s supposed to be more equitable. (Many women with private insurance still pay out of pocket for abortion care, according to a 2013 studyco-authored by the Guttmacher Institute’s Rachel K. Jones. The pro-choice research institute maintains a list of states that restrict private insurance from covering abortion. Vox’s Kliff published a story Thursday about how patients with private insurance that covers abortion “often have to fight for coverage.”)

Sanders is the only lawmaker whose bill addresses Hyde. Conyers is aware of the issue but is banking on Hyde being gone before Medicare for All becomes a reality. He’s involved in a separate effort to put an end to Hyde. Schatz represents the great unknown.

Three Bills, Three Different Approaches

Sanders’ Medicare for All bill will preempt the discriminatory Hyde Amendment, according to an aide.

“It will cover ‘comprehensive reproductive, maternity and newborn care.’ Abortion falls into that bucket,” the aide said in an email. “We are also taking steps to ensure the government could not refuse to accredit an abortion provider as a participating provider simply because they provide abortions.”

Conyers’ version does not.

“I just can’t envision a world where we have the votes to pass Medicare for All but we haven’t repealed the Hyde Amendment yet,” Dan Riffle, Conyers’ senior legislative assistant for health care, told Rewire.

“We agree that that’s important,” Riffle said in a phone interview. “I just don’t think it’s something we should slow down progress on Medicare for All now, today, based on a concern that is almost certainly not likely to be present when the bill is passed.”

Conyers began introducing Medicare for All bills in 2003—more than a decade before Democrats cast off Hyde as the cost of doing business on Capitol Hill and coalesced around the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act. The EACH Woman Act replaces Hyde with explicit guaranteed abortion coverage under Medicaid, Medicare, and other health-care plans obtained through the federal government. The legislation protects private insurance companies that cover abortion care from political interference at the federal, state, and local levels.

More than two-thirds of House Democrats, including Conyers, signed on to the 2015 and 2017 versions of the legislation embodying the #BeBoldEndHyde movement. More than half of the chamber’s Democrats have co-sponsored Conyers’ vision for universal coverage.

Conyers’ office considered amending this year’s Medicare for All bill to address Hyde but faced a “tight timeline” prior to introduction, according to Riffle. Although the office is open to amending a future version, the “easiest way” to get co-sponsors to sign onto a bill is to tell co-sponsors from prior years that it’s the same.

“That’s why we try to do it the same every year,” Riffle said. “But, you know, there comes a point where you do have to update it,” whether that’s by eliminating Hyde or “moving away from a fee-for-service to [an] outcome-based payments model.”

“It’s something that we’ll look at, I don’t know if it’s something that we would put in on the first draft, but again, we’re never going to pass a Medicare for All bill that doesn’t cover abortion services.”

Schatz’s Medicaid expansion bill may or may not take Hyde into consideration. A spokesperson, Mike Inacay, asked Rewire to send questions via email but ignored repeated follow-up requests for answers.

The Senate does not have any Hyde-ending legislation comparable to the House’s EACH Woman Act.

#BeBoldEndHyde From the Start

Advocates agree that single-payer bills must tackle Hyde, even as they concurrently work to end the provision.

Destiny Lopez is the co-director of All* Above All, a reproductive justice coalition dedicated to eliminating Hyde, partly through spearheading support for the EACH Woman Act. She maintains that any universal coverage that doesn’t include abortion among the full range of reproductive health services “falls short of accomplishing what the purpose of the law actually is—that everyone can get the health care that they need.”

“Anything that somehow carves out or doesn’t address existing abortion coverage bans is not good enough for us,” Lopez said in a phone interview.

Prominent members of the All* Above All coalition have had positive discussions with Sanders’ office. “The proof will be in the pudding, right, so we’ll see kind of what mechanisms they’re going to use to do that, and we’ll hold our breath until we see the bill,” Lopez said.

As for Conyers’ version, “our wish for that bill would be the same.”

“I think there’s some work we still need to do on the House side to ensure that that bill, again, is a bill that’s putting out our vision.”

Lopez acknowledged that work is a little easier on the House side because of the 122 EACH Woman Act co-sponsors, including Conyers, who have “put their values on this out there.”

Whether Hyde-type restrictions would automatically carry over into a single-payer universe depends on how the bills are written, according to the National Women’s Law Center’s Rachel Easter. Would the bills, for instance, fund health care through mechanisms subject to Hyde?

“What we do know is that members of Congress who are opposed to abortion are constantly trying to eliminate insurance coverage of abortion altogether,” Easter, counsel for reproductive rights and health, told Rewire.

Easter pointed to congressional Republicans’ push to end private insurance coverage of abortion carethrough their Obamacare repeal bill and sundry legislative attempts to expand and codify Hyde. Anti-choice lawmakers will try to hold single-payer proposals hostage as well, she warned in a phone interview.

That’s why the lawmakers behind single-payer bills need to take aim at Hyde from the start.

Abortion Access for All

And just as importantly, they need to be proactive in specifying abortion care within the scope of covered services.

“How does a piece of legislation determine what is and isn’t covered?” Easter asked. “Does it refer to what the ACA requires coverage for? Because if so, that’s not automatically going to include abortion coverage.”

It’s not at all. President Obama in 2010 signed an executive order applying the Hyde Amendment to the ACA. Obama’s executive order followed the unsuccessful Stupak-Pitts Amendment’s attempt to bar the ACA’s tax credits from subsidizing health insurance plans that covers abortion.

Although the Stupak-Pitts amendment ultimately failed, it initially passed the House with the help of 64 Democrats. Only a handful of those Democrats remain in the House. But even vocally pro-choice members of the party have rejected a litmus test on abortioninviting anti-choice Democrats into the fold. Sanders, a progressive icon and former presidential candidate who ran on ending Hyde prior to its inclusion in the Democratic Party platformtold NPR that “you just can’t exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.”

Democrats’ and progressives’ fealty to abortion rights, then, isn’t a given in the upcoming single-payer debates.

“It’s a concern for me at a time when the Democrats are talking about candidates and saying, ‘We’re not too worried about your litmus test here,’” Karen Middleton, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado’s executive director and a former state legislator, said in a phone interview.

Middleton and other Colorado-based reproductive rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief when a 2016 ballot initiative to add universal health coverage to the state’s constitution failed. The proposal didn’t override Colorado’s pre-existing constitutional ban on state funds for abortion care. “It’s likely that universal health care advocates left out any protections for abortion coverage to ease the initiative’s passage in a somewhat conservative state,” Slate’s Christina Cauterucci reported at the time.

Single-payer advocates in Congress can confront Hyde head-on because it’s part of a statute; were Democrats who support the EACH Woman Act in power, they’d likely choose to stop attaching the ban in the form of riders to the various appropriations bills (and the continuing resolutions that fund the government in the absence of viable appropriations bills), unlike their Republican counterparts.

Middleton encouraged those lawmakers to “at least start with the best version of the bill, not start with the bill where we need to advocate” to override Hyde and cover abortion. Reproductive rights advocates didn’t accept that tradeoff for the supposed greater good in Colorado, and they won’t now.

“The cautionary tale of Colorado was that we had well-meaning allies and advocates who we work with closely all the time who were so committed to wanting to provide universal health care that they missed nuance,” Middleton said. “They were happy to throw this issue [of abortion] under the bus.”

“It was really sad to get into that fight, which is why the idea that they’re even thinking about it [in Congress] ahead of time … would make so much more sense, and it would bring all of us to the table to help fight to support the bill,” she added. “You’re much happier having us as friends than enemies, trust me.”

The ‘Not At Home’ exhibition is an attempt to recreate the experience of the 170,000 Irish women who have travelled abroad for abortions

Waiting room at a British pregnancy advisory service clinic in Liverpool,  where some Irish women travel to access abortion. Photograph: Cliona Ni Laoi
Waiting room at a British pregnancy advisory service clinic in Liverpool, where some Irish women travel to access abortion. Photograph: Cliona Ni Laoi

Last year theatre makers Grace Dyas and Emma Fraser came to me with a big idea. They had plans to recreate the experience of the just over 170,000 Irish women who over the past few decades have had to travel out of Ireland for safe abortion services. It would be a “durational art installation” open to the public. It would feature video and live performances. There was talk of “soundscapes”. I did not immediately fall in love with the big idea.

My abortion, which I had in the 1990s in London, was not art, durational or otherwise. So at first I did not understand why these two women wanted to go all Tracey Emin on a life experience which while very common is private and – especially when it’s illegal in your country – often difficult to speak about. How could they authentically “recreate” this experience? When it came to the ordeal of travelling for a termination, you really had to be there.

Perhaps I should have been more open to the idea. In September 2015, I went public in this newspaper with my own, very ordinary, abortion story. I did so because I hoped speaking out might contribute to a change in the national conversation.

I was fed up with the fact that as a country we were intermittently convulsed by the abortion “debate” but only at certain designated moments: when a raped teenager was being dragged through the courts – “yes, okay, then, let’s talk about her, if we really must”. Or when talk turned to the tragedy of fatal foetal abnormalities – “hmmmm, maybe we better talk about the cruel way we treat those women”. Or when a woman died. Her name was Savita. We had to talk about it then. And afterwards some of us found we could not shut up. Sorry. (I’m not really sorry.)

Us everyday abortion exports/experts didn’t feature much in the national conversation, which is why I and many others have told our stories. And yet even though I had gone public, I wasn’t immediately sure why Dyas and Fraser wanted to make an exhibition out of us abortion travellers.

As anyone who has seen their work to date will know, these are two clever, creative and compassionate young women. Eventually I got the message: Dyas and Fraser believe that even though in recent years more women have spoken about their experiences of travelling for abortions, for many those experiences remain abstract and unseen. So they’ve been collecting our testimonies and travelled to a British Pregnancy Advisory Service Clinic in Liverpool to gather material for the installation: Not At Home is an attempt to draw back the twitching curtain on the experience of women who had to travel for abortions. It’s a space “for her to speak”. A space “for us to listen”

Here’s what I’ve come to love about what they are doing: “We don’t want to preach to the converted,” they told me. “We don’t want to shame people into taking a liberal position. We acknowledge that the issue is complicated and complex. We hope the piece will allow people to witness the reality of the consequences of our abortion laws.”

You had to be there, you see. And now you can. By visiting Not At Home you can travel with us. Sit in the waiting room. Read the magazines. You can hear our voices. Take the taxi. You can listen to the comments of the Liverpudlian cab drivers who, knowing where we were going and knowing we were not at home, acted as surrogate dads to us on the way to the clinic.

At Not At Home you can acknowledge us in all our tiny details. That woman who had a cup of tea in an airport in Leeds which meant she couldn’t get an anaesthetic and would have to be fully conscious for the procedure. The woman who bled on a bathmat in a B&B in Manchester and spent hours trying to clean the stain because she was embarrassed. By visiting Not At Home you can walk in our shoes. See where we bled in tube carriages and on airport seats.

You can look. Or you can look away. It’s your choice. Aren’t you lucky to have one?

Private viewing of ‘Not At Home’

Are you someone who had to leave Ireland for an abortion? Are you one of that vast tribe of Irish women who made a healthcare decision, one that is outlawed in our country by the Eighth Amendment to the constitution?

I want to invite you into The Recovery Room with me for one night only on September 13th, for a private viewing of the Not At Home exhibition before it opens. We will talk. We might hug. We will definitely eat Custard Creams.

Above all else I hope we’ll feel solidarity with one another. We, the women Ireland cannot look in the eye, will stand together and reflect on that lonely, vulnerable time when we were Not At Home.

Not At Home by THEATREclub takes place at NCAD Gallery, Dublin, as part of the Dublin Fringe Festival on Thursday 14th & Friday 15th September, 5pm – 9pm and Saturday 16th & Sunday 17th at 12pm-6pm. It is not ticketed.

Recovery Room, a solidarity evening for women who have travelled for abortion services, takes place in the gallery on September 13th. For tickets visit https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/recovery-room-with-roisin-ingle-connect-and-share-for-one-night-only-tickets-36187116640

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/to-understand-abortion-travel-you-have-to-be-there-1.3198084?mode=amp

The Supreme Court on Friday directed Chandigarh’s legal service authority to disburse a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to 10-year-old rape victim who delivered a baby after being denied abortion.

The bench, comprising of justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta asked the Chandigarh administration to make the identity of the victim and give her Ra 1 lakh. The balance of Rs 9 lakh will be kept as fixed deposit.

dignity

AFP

The order came after a petition seeking a Rs 10 lakh compensation for the victim whose plea seeking permission to undergo termination of pregnancy was earlier negated by the apex court.

The court also directed that no one should disclose the identity of the newborn baby, the victim’s parents, their place of work and their residence. Any breach in maintaining confidentiality would attract contempt of court and action under the provision of the Indian Penal Code.

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/10-yo-rape-victim-who-became-mother-after-being-denied-abortion-to-get-rs-10-lakh-compensation-328592.html

Germantown Reproductive Health Services is under contract to be purchased by the Maryland Coalition for Life, an anti-choice organization that has targeted the clinic with protests.

One of only a handful of clinics in the United States providing later abortion care is closing its doors after the owners reportedly sold the facilities to an anti-choice organization.

Maryland’s Germantown Reproductive Health Services is under contract to be purchased by the Maryland Coalition for Life, an anti-choice organization that has targeted the clinic with protests, reported the Washington Post.  The clinic will be replaced by an anti-choice fake clinic.

The Maryland Coalition for Life operates a fake clinic across the parking lot of Germantown Reproductive Health Services. A fake clinic, commonly known as a crisis pregnancy center, does not provide full reproductive health-care services and seeks to dissuade people from seeking abortion care with anti-choice propaganda.

The owners of Germantown Reproductive Health Services also own Prince George’s Reproductive Health Services, which does not provide abortion care in the later stages of pregnancy. Both Maryland clinics have now been permanently closed, according to the organization’s website.

LeRoy Carhart, one of the few physicians in the United States who provides abortion care in the later stages of pregnancy, has provided abortion services at the Germantown clinic since 2010. Carhart told reproductive rights advocates that he plans to continue to provide abortion care in the area at a new clinic.

Carhart said in a statement to the Washington Post that he would continue to provide care for his patients.

“I am doing everything in my power to keep my practice open, and I am considering options looking toward the future,” Carhart said. “It’s heartbreaking that anyone would want to take health care away from women and families by targeting our clinic.”

Diana Philip, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, said in a statement that the “most immediate concern” is how the clinic’s closure will affect patients’ access to abortion care in the later stages of pregnancy.

“For the last few years, Dr. Carhart has shared his vision with allies to create his own facility in Maryland to address the dearth of training available to medical professionals in later abortion care,” Philip said.

Philip said the Planned Parenthood clinics in the state and Carhart’s new practice should ensure that pregnant people in Maryland will continue to have access to reproductive health care.

Three of the seven Planned Parenthood clinics in Maryland provide abortion services.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/08/29/doctor-vows-continue-providing-later-abortions-anti-choice-group-buys-clinic/

screen_shot_20170825_at_3.12.21_pm
Agusta Ingadottir, one of the few Icelandic children born with Down syndrome in the country.

CBS News/Screenshot

Last Monday, CBS News ran a report on Down syndrome in Iceland. There, since screening tests for pregnant women became available in the early aughts, nearly 100 percent of women who found out their fetuses probably had the chromosomal abnormality terminated their pregnancies. Only one or two babies are born with Down syndrome each year, usually to women who got an inaccurate test or were one of the 15 percent or so who opt not to be screened. The U.S. rate of Down syndrome births is three to six times higher.

Social attitudes toward abortion and toward the disability itself certainly play a role in differing rates of Down-related terminations. The CBS News segment quoted one medical counselor—an employee at the Reykjavik hospital where 7 in 10 Icelandic children are born—who said that these parents have “ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication…preventing suffering for the child and for the family,” a characterization most disability-rights advocates would dispute. In one sense, abortions sought after a positive Down screening could be part of a self-perpetuating cycle: If Icelanders meet few to no people with Down syndrome in their lives, they may be less confident about raising a child with a condition that’s unknown to them, leading to more Down-related abortions and fewer people with Down syndrome for future parents to meet. Advocates contend that a society that encourages women to terminate fetuses with Down syndrome is one that ascribes less value to a child with Down syndrome, which leads to discrimination against people living with the condition.

In the U.S., anti-abortion leaders are hijacking this rhetoric of the disability rights movement to argue against women’s rights to choose their own future for their families and bodies. On Tuesday, the Ohio Senate had a second hearing for a bill that would charge doctors with fourth-degree felonies if they performed abortions on women who sought the procedure because their fetuses had a high probability of Down syndrome. Physicians would have to fill out “abortion reports” after each procedure, certifying that they had no idea whether or not the patient wanted to terminate her pregnancy due to a Down screening. Supporters of the bill have likened Down-related abortions to “eugenics,” saying women who choose abortion after a positive Down screening are engaging in discrimination.

Laws that try to prohibit women from accessing a constitutionally protected medical procedure because of their reasons for wanting to access it are notoriously difficult to enforce. Several states have passed sex-selective abortion bans, which are based on a racist myth that Asian-Americans are aborting their female fetuses at unconscionable rates, but there’s no good way to elicit proof of why a woman is seeking an abortion. That should be a clear sign that the reasons shouldn’t matter: For abortion-rights advocates, there’s no acceptable reason to deny a woman the right to bodily autonomy; for abortion-rights opponents, if abortion truly is murder, as they claim, there should be no acceptable reason to allow it. It’s the same for politicians who boast of their anti-abortion bona fides, then allow for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. If their arguments were consistent, they’d allow for no such concessions—but they know most Americans support such exemptions, so they sacrifice intellectual and moral purity for the popular vote.

Jeanne Mancini, the president of the March for Life, laid out her argument against Down-related abortions in Washington Post opinion piece on Thursday. In it, she claims a medical student told her that his professor taught that doctors have a “responsibility” to encourage abortion after a parent’s prenatal Down diagnosis. She cites surveys that have shown that people with Down syndrome generally report high life satisfaction, and that their families report high levels of “personal fulfillment.” “Not only are people with Down syndrome happy, but they also bring a great deal of happiness to their friends and family members,” Mancini writes. “Indeed, the survey found that 88 percent of siblings of children with Down syndrome feel that they are better people for having had their brothers and sisters.”

Reducing the life purpose of a person with Down syndrome to a learning opportunity for her siblings is just as damaging as assuming that people living with Down are “suffering,” as the Icelandic doctor put it. There is no inherent moral good in increasing the number of people with a given genetic condition, just as there is no inherent moral good in eliminating that condition from the population. Doctors should never press women one way or another on abortion—a fact as applicable to Down-screening counseling as the dozens of state laws that force physicians to tell their patients flat-out lies to discourage them from terminating their pregnancies. The sponsors of the Ohio bill had parents of kids with Down syndrome testify at Tuesday’s hearing, as if the existence of their happy, healthy children justified the curtailing of women’s constitutional rights.

A study of studies conducted between 1995 and 2011 found that between 50 and 85 percent of people who receive a positive prenatal Down screening terminate their pregnancies. For the most part, in other words, the happy lives Mancini describes in her piece are the lives of people who chose to carry their pregnancies to term, especially if Down-related abortions are as pushed upon women as she claims. These are not people who, faced with unwanted pregnancies, are forced to carry them to term against their will. Studies have shown that women denied abortions that they want are more likely to be in poverty, more likely to stay with abusive intimate partners, and more likely to have neutral or negative future outlooks than women who get the abortions they seek. Women turned away from abortion care are also less likely to have “aspirational one-year plans,” an important indicator of hope and confidence, than those who were successfully able to terminate their unwanted pregnancies.

Bills like Ohio’s would introduce a veil of suspicion into the doctor’s office, making medical providers second-guess their patients’ motives instead of giving them non-judgmental care. Women’s rights and disability rights are not mutually exclusive movements; they intersect and inform one another in important ways. Anti-abortion activists are stoking fear in advocates of the latter in hopes that they’ll join an assault on the former.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/25/anti_choice_activists_are_using_down_syndrome_parents_to_argue_against_abortion.html

Chile no longer shares the notoriety of being one of the few countries in the world where a young girl can be forced to carry her rapist’s child to term.

Last week, Chile eased its complete ban on abortion. Abortion is now permitted when the pregnant person’s life is in danger, the fetus is not viable, or the pregnancy is a result of rape.

All this means that Chile no longer shares the notoriety of being one of the few countries in the world where the life of a fetus is prioritized over a woman’s life, or where a young girl can be forced to carry her rapist’s child to term.

Those who want to deny women access to abortion—in Chile, the United States, and elsewhere—often claim they are protecting them from so-called trauma resulting from their abortions. As a Chilean-born social psychologist researcher who has been studying the effects of abortion on women for about seven years, I was asked by a human rights lawyer at a university in Chile to submit an amicus brief and to present, in front of Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal, any evidence of such a phenomenon.

In the amicus brief and presentation, I noted that the idea that abortion causes psychological trauma has been systematically refuted. Every rigorous review on this topic, including those conducted by major mental health organizations in the United States and Europe, have found no evidence that abortion leads to mental health harm.

The latest evidence on abortion and mental health comes from the U.S. “Turnaway Study,” which compares the outcomes of women who received abortions to those of women who were denied them. My colleagues and I have authored more than 30 articles using data from this study. We found that women denied an abortion suffered worse mental health outcomes initially. Soon after being denied an abortion, these women had more symptoms of anxiety, lower self-esteem, and less life satisfaction. By six months to a year after the initial denial of access to care, both groups were similar; women in both groups improved over time.

Women who had an abortion were no more likely to experience symptoms of depression or post-traumatic stress, than women denied an abortion.  The most common reason women gave for any symptoms of post-traumatic stress was experience of violence and abuse, not the abortion. Yet, the myth that abortion causes mental health harm is persistent and used to defend laws that restrict women’s access to abortion.

Furthermore, the criminalization of abortion has not eliminated abortion in Chile or anywhere else it has been banned or restricted. In Chile, the prosecution of women who have an abortion has meant that many women, particularly those with few resources, seek clandestine procedures. These women report living in fear of experiencing complications, dying, or being imprisoned—which likely has negative consequences on their mental health. Hundreds have been prosecuted; most have children and are poor.

Chile’s constitutional tribunal opened up its courts last week to hear evidence from more than 135 organizations in support of or in opposition to the constitutionality of the proposed law. The entire country and world were invited to watch the live coverage of the court’s proceedings, a true demonstration of democracy and transparency. After sifting through the evidence, the court’s decision to support this law is a huge victory for the women of Chile. It marks a moment when women’s voices were heard, where the evidence was weighed, and women were trusted to make their own decisions about their bodies.

While this is an important victory to celebrate for women, I will continue to be concerned for the women left to clandestine procedures. The number of women who will directly benefit from this law is sure to be small. Along with overcoming the tremendous stigma that comes with wanting an abortion in a country that has condemned it for nearly three decades, women will have a number of additional barriers to accessing care. First, their desire for abortion will need to fall under these three very narrow circumstances, and Chile is unlikely to consider further relaxing the law. Second, they will need to find a provider that can affirm that their health is really in danger, that the fetus is in fact not viable, or that the pregnancy is the result of rape. For some women, this barrier will be insurmountable, particularly for those living in rural areas where access to clinicians with such specialized expertise is limited. Finally, women will need to find a provider who can perform an abortion, in a country where health professionals have little training or experience in doing so or who may not be willing to offer it.

As a researcher, I believe that consideration of laws restricting the provision of medical care should take into account the effect on women’s health and well-being as determined by sound empirical research. Findings from the Turnaway Study demonstrate that that allowing women to get the abortions they want can help them escape povertyleave violent relationships, and achieve aspirational life goals.

Chile’s constitutional court heard the evidence and voted in favor of allowing women to make their own decisions in the most limited of circumstances. Meanwhile, El Salvador, a country that denies and imprisons women who seek abortion, is considering easing its complete abortion ban as well. Women who are suspected of procuring an abortion are being charged with homicide; some are currently facing prison sentences of up to 50 years. The practice of sentencing women and adolescents who choose abortion due to rape with longer prison sentences than their rapists—as is the case in El Salvador—is inhumane and disrespectful to women’s health and dignity.  It still remains to be seen whether El Salvador will look to Chile as it considers opening its doors to policies that protect women’s health and rights, rather than treating women and children as criminals.

It’s time that policymakers weigh the evidence on the effects of abortion on women and their families, and trust women to make their own decisions.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/08/29/chile-relaxed-abortion-ban-go-far-enough/

Some of the junior high students in Travis County, Texas, break into nervous laughter at the mere mention of sex. Some shyly ask questions.

But most fall silent when Julie Maciel, a health educator, tells them how terrifying it is to become pregnant as a teenager.

Maciel, of Austin, had her daughter when she was only 17. The unplanned pregnancy was largely due to a lack of sex education in schools, she says — something she’s determined to change.

“It’s not just about sex ed. It’s about making decisions about what they want to do in the future. They keep in mind, should I have a baby now, or will that delay my dreams?” said now 21-year-old Maciel, who works for EngenderHealth, a non-profit that depends on federal funding to reach at-risk teens who wouldn’t otherwise have sex ed in school — funding that is now at risk due to deep cuts made by the Trump administration.

Maciel’s work is desperately needed in Texas, which has the fifth-highest teen pregnancy rate in the United States along with the nation’s highest repeat teen pregnancy rate, according to the CDC.

Image: A teenager has birth control options explained to her by a social worker
A teenager has birth control options explained to her at the Children’s Hospital Colorado’s Colorado Adolescent Maternity Program. Marc Piscotty / The Washington Post via Getty Images

But the Lone Star state, like the rest of the country, has experienced a marked drop in teen pregnancies. Last year, teenage births hit a record low in the United States; rates plummeted the most for black and Latina teens, the CDC found, although they’re still up to three times as likely as their white counterparts to give birth.

Many hail an evidence-based, Obama-era federal grant program as the biggest driver behind the dip. Started in 2010, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program gives $89 million a year to 81 organizations across the United States, including EngenderHealth.

It was renewed in 2015 for another five years.

That’s why it was so surprising to Maciel and others when, tucked away in a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services dated July 3, bad news arrived: The Trump administration had slashed more than $200 million from the program without warning — meaning funding would now end in June 2018, not in 2020.

The abrupt funding cut to teen pregnancy prevention, at a time when teenage births are at historic lows, has been called “highly unusual” by Senate Health Committee Democrats, especially since Congress hasn’t even voted on the 2018 appropriations bill yet. Legislators have until Sept. 30 to figure out the budget, although they could do a short-term continuing resolution and end up voting in December.

“I’ve worked at the Health Department for 10 years, and I’ve worked in international health for 20 years prior, and I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Rebecca Dineen, Baltimore’s Assistant Commissioner for Maternal and Child Health, which benefits from the grants. “It really was just this notification that your funds are ending.”

Dineen fears it could be catastrophic for Baltimore, where teen pregnancy rates have dropped by a third but are still double the rest of the state of Maryland’s and significantly higher than the national average. The city stands to lose $3.5 million, which Dineen said will affect 100 schools and about 20,000 students.

“What we’re doing is evidence-based work. We have made a 44 percent decrease in teen pregnancy in Baltimore city,” she said. “For us to be in such a position of success, to be very strategic in our work and then to have something like this happen, is very surprising.”

The Department of Health and Human Services said the grants “were subject to a rigorous evaluation” and said there was “very weak evidence of positive impact of these programs” in contrast to “promised results.”

It cited “negative or no impact on the behavior” of teens in 73 percent of evaluation results for 37 of the projects.

That’s baffling to Bill Albert, spokesman at the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy in Washington, D.C., who pointed out that the teenage birth rate has declined 41 percent since 2010.

“It would be fanciful to suggest that this program alone is responsible for that 41 percent decline, but it would be nonsensical to not believe that it hasn’t had a profound effect,” he said.

Albert said he suspects Trump’s new hires at the HHS — Valerie Huber, an outspoken abstinence education advocate who was recently named chief of staff to the assistant secretary for health, plus social conservative HHS Secretary Tom Price — could be behind the cuts.

“Maybe they don’t like the content of the program,” he said. “They care more about telling kids to say ‘no’ rather than supporting programs that help teenagers.”

The data cited by HHS doesn’t tell the whole story, said Susan Zief, a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research, which was commissioned to evaluate some of the projects by the government.

“The evidence shows that these programs are showing promising results on a range of outcomes,” she said. But, she said, some programs might have only had positive outcomes on at least one of the program goals: for example, knowledge about pregnancy and STDs, or attitudes toward using contraceptives.

While that may not necessarily have an impact now, that type of positive outcome is important “to influencing subsequent sexual behaviors,” she added, noting that longer term research is needed.

In the meantime, health commissioners from 20 large cities have written to Price, pleading for a change of heart.

“Cutting TPPP funding and shortening the project period will not only reverse historic gains made in the U.S. in reducing teen pregnancy rates, but also make it difficult to truly understand what practices are most effective in our communities across the nation,” the letter, from the Big Cities Health Coalition, read.

Senate Democrats wrote a letter, too, calling the move “short-sighted.” They also praised the teen pregnancy prevention program as a “pioneering example of evidence-based policymaking.”

“Despite these successes, HHS has apparently elected to eliminate the final two years of TPP Program grants without cause or a rationale for the termination,” they wrote.

in the meantime, grantees are scrambling to see if they can make up for the loss of funding. In Baltimore, officials are “looking in all directions” to recoup their losses, said Dineen. And they’re hoping that if funds are appropriated back to the program, that they aren’t designated for abstinence-only education.

“I think that would be unfortunate,” she said. “Abstinence-only funding can be helpful for our elementary school grades, but there’s no evidence around abstinence education in middle and high school years.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-administration-abruptly-cuts-funding-teen-pregnancy-prevention-programs-n795321?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ai