The law includes burying or cremating a fetus, potentially jailing doctors, and banning some abortion procedures altogether.

Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images

Under a sweeping new law, women in Texas will be virtually unable to get the most common type of second-trimester abortions and legally required to bury or cremate their fetal remains.

On Tuesday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed several anti-abortion measures into law that further restrict abortion rights, nearly a year after the Supreme Court ruled that much of the state’s abortion restrictions were unconstitutional. Portions of the bill are slated to take effect this September.

The newly passed Texas Senate Bill 8 bans the most common type of second-trimester abortion, dilation and evacuation, or D&E, along with other regulations that abortion rights advocates argue reflect a new, harsher strategy to target focus on the fetus instead of the health of the mother to make it more difficult to safely get an abortion.

The Center for Reproductive Rights vowed to fight the law and expects other rights groups to follow, again pitting Texas in the center of a national battle over how far states can go in restricting abortion.

“No state has put together a host of restrictions in one package like this before,” said Amanda Allen, the Center for Reproductive Rights’ senior state legislative counsel. “It’s the most sweeping piece of anti-abortion legislation this session.”

Texas Alliance, a group who helped draft the bill, said in a statement to BuzzFeed News that the motivation for the legislation was “to respond to the videos from the Center for Medical Progress that exposed Planned Parenthood’s sale and donation of tissues and organs harvested from the bodies of babies who died from elective abortion.”

Multiple investigations have not found any evidence that Planned Parenthood sold tissue from aborted fetuses for profit.

Texas is known for enacting strict, sweeping abortion laws that have made it increasingly difficult for the vast state’s 5.4 million women of reproductive age to access abortion services.

In 2013, lawmakers passed one of the nation’s strictest abortion laws, known as HB2, which shuttered about half of the nearly 40 abortion clinics scattered across the state. Although the Supreme Court struck down much of that law last year, only three abortion clinics have reopened, according to the Associated Press.

Texas Tribune / Via texastribune.org

Banning the D&E surgical procedure, which abortion rights and medical groups say is the safest and most accessed, effectively eliminates second-trimester abortions in the state.

That means women who might not have had access to a clinic or could not afford to travel hundreds of miles to get one until about 12 weeks could no longer have an abortion, Allen explained.

The new law bars a woman from getting a D&E procedure even if she was a victim of rape or incest, allowing it only in cases of a medical emergency.

While Arkansas’s D&E ban is set to start in August, courts have blocked similar attempts in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director, also thinks his state’s attempt won’t survive a court challenge, noting that “we don’t think the day has come” when a federal court will uphold banning such a common procedure.

Map showing open abortion clinics in Texas and nearby states.

And while a woman won’t be prosecuted over a now-illegal abortion procedure, her doctor will. Under the new law, any physician in Texas who performs such a procedure could go to jail.

Clinics are also mandated to bury or cremate any embryonic and fetal remains, a regulation Texas enacted before but never went into effect because a judge deemed it unconstitutional in January, concluding that its burdens “substantially outweighed” its benefits.

On Thursday, Whole Women’s Health asked a judge to expand that block to include SB8’s burial requirements, arguing that it’s basically the same unconstitutional requirement.

Providers and rights advocates say these burial costs would spike clinics’ operation costs, which could be passed down to patients and result in even more facilities closing.

“These regulations mean they might have to work with third parties, like disposal companies, to keep their doors open,” Allen explained. “Such burdens could force more remote ones to close.” However, the law does include a “burial or cremation” assistance provision that could help alleviate some of the costs.

Pojman said the purpose was to require the “humane disposition of the bodies of babies” and ban the “grinding and flushing in a sewer system and incineration and burying in a landfill.”

However, cremating or burying fetal tissue does not improve or benefit public health, according to the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which argued last year that it “could become a cruel mandate on a woman who is experiencing the grief and trauma of losing a very wanted pregnancy.”

Women who have abortions are also not allowed to donate fetal tissue for scientific research, another rule that rights advocates say unfairly stigmatizes women who get abortions. A woman who had a miscarriage has the choice to do so.

Texas’s renewed battle against abortion reflects an intensified effort nationwide to crack down on clinics and limit access to abortion services.

In Missouri, Republican Gov. Eric Greitens just announced a special legislative session next week aimed at imposing stricter regulations on abortion clinics and targeting a law in St. Louis that he says made it an “abortion sanctuary city.”

“It’s a crusade against a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion,” Allen said. “This is about stigmatizing. It’s never really about women’s health and safety.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briannasacks/this-state-just-passed-one-of-the-strictest-abortion-laws?utm_term=.mgRW635E0#.cdyPKD8QB

Before 18-year-old Maddy Rasmussen launched the Safe Place Project, there was no comprehensive list of every provider in the country—a crucial and harmful lack of information, especially given the alarming rate of clinic closures in the past five years.

Amid a nationwide attack on reproductive rights, even finding an abortion clinic in your state can prove infuriatingly difficult. Anti-abortion groups intentionally post misinformation online in an attempt to trick women, posing as legitimate clinics to lure women into so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.” In the states that have been hit particularly hard by abortion restrictions, it can be difficult to tell which providers are still open; there are seven states with just one provider remaining, and some American women aren’t even sure if abortion is still legal where they live.

Eighteen-year-old Maddy Rasmussen wants to change that. While interning at a women’s rights organization called Legal Voice during her junior year in high school, the Des Moines, Washington–based teen realized that there’s no comprehensive, user-friendly database of abortion clinics in the US. In late May, after six months of work, she launched The Safe Place Project, a website that aims to provide women with safe, unbiased information about where they can get a safe and legal abortion, as well as what obstacles they can expect to face in doing so.

“I’ve always had an interest in women’s rights, but it wasn’t until I started this project that I realized how difficult it can be for women to receive abortion care,” says Rasmussen. (Both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) have extensive clinic lists, but Planned Parenthood’s only includes their own clinics, while NAF only lists providers who are members of the organization.) “I wanted to ease that burden by creating a simple, easy-to-use website where women could get the information they need.”

The Safe Place Project contains a physical map of clinic locations throughout the US; a list of the clinics that contains the name, address, and phone number of each one; and the date on which Rasmussen last verified that the center was open. That latter piece of information is vital: “There were some clinics that, before I was even able to post and update the website, had closed,” she tells Broadly. Often, she adds, the websites for these closed clinics remain un-updated—which can be devastating to women traveling hours to arrive at clinics, only to find they’re no longer open.

Along with listing providers, the Safe Place Project outlines the various legal restrictions on abortion access in each state. These laws include in-person counseling requirements, waiting periods, and parental notification laws. One of the most surprising things she learned in the course of creating the website, Rasmussen says, is how long many women must wait to access abortion care: In 27 states, a woman must wait at least 24 hours between receiving mandatory counseling (which often contains biased information) and returning to the clinic to undergo the actual procedure.

“South Dakota has a really long waiting period, 72 hours. But none of the 72 hours will count if they fall on a weekend or a holiday,” she says disapprovingly. “The state only has one clinic at this time, so it’s extremely difficult to access abortion already, and the regulations that are placed around abortion are just crazy.”

The map on the Safe Place Project homepage reveals a severe dearth of providers nearly splitting the US down the middle, from North Dakota to the Texas/Mexico border line. It serves as a visual representation of just how far some women must travel to visit their nearest abortion clinic: Across the country, multitudes of women face drives of five hours or longer just to access reproductive care.

Though abortion clinics have been under attack for decades now, Rasmussen believes that the current administration’s pointed fight against women’s access to healthcare has made her project more vital than ever. She began her work while President Obama was still in office; after the election, Rasmussen admits to being frightened. “I was really worried about even having my name on the project at all,” she says. “I was afraid [that] I would have to face a reality that many abortion providers have to deal with: stalkers, harassers, having to fear for their lives.”

However, after some careful thought and consideration, Rasmussen realized that those very feelings are what make her work more necessary than ever. “I realized that this project was more important than my fear,” she affirms.

Raemussen will be starting college in the fall, at Western Washington University, where she will pursue a double major in theater and political science. Because she knows this transition is sure to keep her busy, she’s decided to include a contact form on her site in hopes that people will alert her of any changes to the statuses of the abortion clinics on her list.

So far, she has received messages from both trolls and those looking to offer help and praise. On the phone she laughs over one particularly ridiculous response to her project: The anti-abortion site Life News recently published an article on Rasmussen called “Teenager Creates Web Page Celebrating Abortion by Promoting Every Abortion Clinic Nationwide.”

“It was very interesting to read how they painted me,” she says. (“Rasmussen… missed a larger fact in her pro-abortion project,” the article reads. “An abortion is never safe for the unborn baby or the mother.”) “I knew while there would be a positive reaction to it, there would be a negative reaction as well, [but] I realized that all the time and fear that I had in this project would pay off if it would even help just one woman.”

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/meet-the-high-school-student-who-mapped-every-abortion-clinic-in-the-us?utm_source=broadlyfbus

The anti-choice legislation, supported by both Republicans and Democrats, was described by critics as unconstitutional, cruel, and shortsighted.

Louisiana lawmakers on Thursday passed legislation to create more restrictions on minors’ access to abortion care, reported the Associated Press.

Under state law, an unmarried pregnant minor must provide a notarized statement from a parent or legal guardian before a doctor can perform an abortion. The only alternative for a pregnant minor is to obtain a court order to terminate a pregnancy, a process known as judicial bypass.

SB 111, sponsored by state Sen. Beth Mizell (R-Franklinton), would require the parent or legal guardian to provide “evidence of identity” such as a valid and unexpired driver’s license or another type of government-issued identification.
The legislation amends the state’s law regarding judicial bypass.

Under current law, Louisiana minors who seek a court order to obtain abortion care may be required to undergo an evaluation and counseling session with a state-employed mental health professional.

The new legislation would make that evaluation mandatory; the counselor would be required to verify that the minor is not a victim of so-called coerced abortion and to determine if the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or human trafficking.

If the counselor determines the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or human trafficking, the court may appoint a child advocate attorney. The court-appointed advocate must evaluate “how well the minor is informed about pregnancy, fetal development, abortion risks and consequences, the indicators of human trafficking, and abortion alternatives.”

Any person who is not the pregnant minor’s parent or guardian and attempts to provide consent for an abortion could be criminally charged and face up to a $5,000 fine and three years in jail. An employee of an abortion clinic who “knowingly aids and abets a person” who attempts to provide consent for a minor could be criminally charged, and face up to a $1,000 fine and two years in jail.

Speaking on the state senate floor, Mizell claimed the current law was not being applied correctly. “There are people who are posing as parents or guardians of the girls, sometimes for malicious reasons,” Mizell said, though she provided no evidence for her claims.

Megan Snider, a New Orleans attorney who has represented minors seeking judicial bypass, wrote that the legislation is “not only unconstitutional and cruel but also shortsighted,” and would prevent some minors seeking abortion care from reporting abuse.

“Adding more barriers is unnecessary, burdensome and humiliating,” Snider wrote in a letter to the Times-Picayune. “Because the process is already stressful, a new mandate for counseling could harm a teen’s emotional well-being. SB 111 underscores that many of Louisiana’s lawmakers are oblivious to the real-life consequences of their paper proposals.”

SB 111 was passed in the house by Republicans and Democrats in a 93-0 vote; the state senate passed the bill in a 29-6 vote on May 16. The bill now goes to Gov. John Bel Edwards (D), who has signed several anti-choice bills into law.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/06/02/louisiana-legislators-create-cruel-barrier-minors-access-abortion/

JEFFERSON CITY • Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens wants lawmakers to make good on his promise that “crazy liberals” won’t be allowed to create “abortion sanctuary cities” so long as he’s in office.

In an announcement Wednesday, the first-year Republican governor ordered the House and Senate to return to the Capitol for the second special session this year to take action on an ordinance approved by St. Louis aldermen in February banning employers and landlords from discriminating against women who have had an abortion, use contraceptives or are pregnant.

He also is calling for stricter laws on abortion clinics, including annual inspections and additional planning for handling patients with complications.

 “And we’re proposing a fix that will stop abortion clinics from interfering with emergency responders,” he said in a video released on Facebook. “If a woman needs help, abortion clinics shouldn’t be able to tell an ambulance to come slowly — to not use their lights and sirens — or to go around to the back gate, just because they are worried that an ambulance arriving might make their abortion clinic look bad.”

The session is scheduled to begin Monday, but not before Greitens holds at least three campaign-style rallies in support of his initiative. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will join the governor in Springfield, Mo., and Joplin, Mo., for events on Friday. A third rally that day is expected to be held in St. Charles.

The push comes on the heels of a special session called by Greitens to approve a plan aimed at securing lower electric rates for an aluminum smelter and a steel mill looking to open in the Bootheel region.

The GOP-led Legislature, which adjourned its regular session on May 12, failed to approve a proposal during the spring that would have in effect nullified the city ordinance on the grounds that it inhibits the First Amendment rights of alternatives to abortion agencies, or clinics that counsel women against abortions.

Even though St. Louis officials exempted religious organizations under the ordinance, alternatives to abortion agencies and religious groups argue the updated ordinance could force them to hire employees who support abortion, or face fines.

In late May, the Archdiocese of St. Louis and other organizations filed suit against the city, seeking to overturn the ordinance.

Plaintiffs in the federal suit are seeking an immediate injunction against enforcement of the ordinance and its eventual invalidation as unconstitutional. Archbishop Robert Carlson vowed that the archdiocese wouldn’t adhere to the law even if that effort failed.

Greitens also wants the Legislature to address issues arising out of a separate federal case that invalidated requirements for the state’s abortion clinics to meet certain standards.

U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs said abortion rights of Missouri women were guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme Court in last year’s landmark decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down similar restrictions in Texas.

The state laws are at the center of an ongoing legal challenge brought by Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri.

 For Greitens, the special session offers the political newcomer a chance to sharpen support from conservatives after an expensive four-way GOP primary last year that saw him beat more well-established anti-abortion candidates.

Greitens was the only Republican in the race not to be endorsed by Right to Life in the election. In March, at a rally at the Capitol, he vowed to overturn the St. Louis ordinance, calling supporters of the law “crazy liberals.”

In a statement issued Wednesday, Greitens said, “I’m proud to support life — the lives of mothers, their children and the innocent unborn.”

Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake Saint Louis, praised the governor’s order.

“I know the governor weighs very carefully the decision to call the General Assembly back for a special session. But I believe that no greater issue fits the category of extraordinary than the safety of Missourians and the protection of life and the protection of our fundamental rights as Americans,” Onder said.

 Abortion rights groups said the special session would waste taxpayer dollars during tight budget times.

“Missouri families want our leaders to focus on creating jobs and improving education, not wasting time and money on an ideological fight over abortion,” said Alison Dreith, executive director of NARAL Pro Choice Missouri.

In a statement, St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson said, “The city of St. Louis doesn’t support discrimination of any kind. We don’t discriminate based on whether someone is pregnant or uses birth control.”

Despite some clashes this year on ethics reform and other issues, Greitens is likely to have support for his effort from the Legislature, which has a long history of backing stringent abortion restrictions.

Earlier this year, House Speaker Todd Richardson and Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, both Republicans, vowed to Right to Life advocates that there would be no “abortion sanctuary cities” in Missouri, a term coined by conservatives to describe cities with discrimination ordinances similar to St. Louis’.

But during the first special session convened by Greitens, some senators warned against calling another, arguing that some bills simply don’t make it through the regular session but aren’t urgent enough to justify a second look at taxpayers’ expense.

The most recent special session cost an estimated $67,000 in daily expense money for lawmakers, mileage and additional staff.

The special session marks the latest attempt by Republicans who control Jefferson City to target initiatives in the Democratic stronghold of St. Louis. In one of their final acts before adjourning in May, the House and Senate voted to overturn the city’s minimum wage increase.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/targeting-abortion-laws-greitens-calls-another-special-session/article_88577006-65c4-547d-b601-15bb096b7de5.html

Photo by Cameron Zegers via Stocksy

A new study reveals that Texas legislators were perfectly content to let mothers die in childbirth while obsessively passing laws that restrict abortion access.

A recent study found that the state of Texas has the highest rate of maternal mortality (deaths due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth) in the US and the rest of the developed world, and now, state legislators have all but voted to keep it that way.

The World Health Organization cites the US as the only developed country in the world where maternal deaths increased between 1993 and 2013. And according to a study from the University of Maryland published in September, the rate of Texas women who died from complications related to pregnancy doubled from 2010 to 2014—the same period in which legislators passed the state’s most draconian abortion restrictions. Despite being made aware of these findings, Texas legislators did not enact any public policy to address these alarming rates during the state legislature’s 140-day working period, and will now have to wait until 2019 to do so, reports the AP.

Published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, the study noted that “in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval, the doubling of mortality rate within a two-year period in a state with almost 400,000 annual births seems unlikely.” But exactly that has happened in the Republican-controlled state of Texas—notorious for the most restrictive abortion laws in the country and the mass closure of women’s health clinics—with the study concluding that rates in Texas increased from 18 deaths per 100,000 births in 2006 to 36 deaths per 100,000 births in 2014. The findings also revealed that women of color were more vulnerable to maternal mortality, with black women constituting 11 percent of births in Texas but 28 percent of the deaths.

Eugene Declercq, Assistant Dean of Doctoral Education at Boston University School of Public Health and one of the study’s authors, told Broadly, “The changes in Texas were so profound in such a short time we didn’t feel comfortable using them in a national estimate. There was just such a rapid increase,” said Declercq. “The larger message of the study is we aren’t doing a good job of measuring maternal mortality and by reasonable estimates, the rate is higher than has been reported generally and should be a matter of concern.”

According to the Guardian, reproductive health advocates have responded to the study by pointing to the increase of “Republican-led budget cuts that decimated the ranks of Texas’s reproductive health care clinics.” Marsha Jones, executive director of the Afiya Center, a reproductive justice organization founded by and for black women in Texas, told the AP, “When you do things like making access to abortions almost impossible, the impact that’s going to have on our state’s most vulnerable population is worse and worse.”

Declercq believes that to improve these numbers, advocates and legislators should be focusing on changing the focus from maternal deaths during childbirth to women’s health overall. “To focus on women’s health instead of just their ability to deliver a safe baby, will result in covering women generally. Then they will enter the pregnancy healthier, with a medical home, and ensure they will have a medical home after the pregnancy,” he explained. “Texas recently made Medicaid cuts. Which proves what I’m talking about. You’re not going to improve maternal outcomes if you don’t pay attention to women’s health.”

While some Texas legislators did attempt to introduce new measures to combat the study’s startling findings on maternal mortality rates, many did not make it to a vote. “We had a chance to move the needle and we really failed to do so,” Republican Senator Lois Kolkhorst told the AP after the closing of this year’s legislative session. “I’m disappointed.”

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/texas-passed-abortion-restrictions-while-maternal-deaths-doubled?utm_source=nar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB

As the battle over abortion rights continues to spread from Washington to state capitals, Delaware lawmakers have taken the lead in ensuring that abortion remains legal if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.

The state House on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill eliminating restrictions on abortion in current Delaware law, which has remained on the books despite being superseded for decades by federal law.

Democratic Gov. John Carney said he will sign the measure, for which Planned Parenthood lobbied.

Passage of the bill comes as similar attempts in other Democratic-leaning states to codify abortion rights have stalled.

In Connecticut, which already has a “legislative declaration” protecting a woman’s right to choose abortion, a bill did not get out of committee. A measure in New Mexico to decriminalize abortion by statute also failed to get a floor vote.

In Rhode Island, bills seeking to codify abortion rights have been held for further study.

In New York, a measure protecting abortion access in the event that federal restrictions arise passed the Democratic-led Assembly but has yet to be considered in the Republican-led Senate.

Meanwhile, Illinois Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner has threatened to veto legislation that strikes language in current Illinois statute indicating the state’s intent to criminalize abortion except to preserve the life of the mother if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. The bill also would expand abortion coverage to state workers and Medicaid recipients.

In Iowa, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, recently confirmed as ambassador to China, signed a bill last month banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Tennessee’s Republican governor also has signed a strict ban on late-term abortions. Similar laws are in effect in at least a dozen other states, and President Donald Trump has promised to sign a federal 20-week ban if it gets through Congress.

Delaware’s current law allows abortions only if the mother’s health is at risk, if there is a substantial risk the child would be born with serious disabilities, or if pregnancy results from rape or incest.

The law also prohibits abortions beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy and requires parental consent for girls under 18. It requires a woman to provide written consent and wait 24 hours after receiving a full explanation of the abortion procedure and effects, the facts of fetal development, and an explanation of reasonable alternatives.

The legislation approved Tuesday removes those restrictions and allows abortion without restriction before a fetus reaches viability. It defines viability as the point in a pregnancy when, in a doctor’s “good faith medical judgment,” there is a reasonable likelihood that the fetus can survive outside the uterus without “extraordinary medical measures.”

The bill also allows abortion after viability if a doctor determines that an abortion is necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, or that the baby is not likely to survive without extraordinary medical measures. That provision led critics to say the bill opens the way to late-term abortions.

In introducing an unsuccessful amendment to prohibit abortion after 20 weeks, Rep. Timothy Dukes, R-Laurel, described a late-term abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation, in which a fetus is dismembered and removed from the womb.

“The methodology of the actual medical procedure is not germane to the bill,” interjected Rep. Sean Lynn, a Dover Democrat.

“Yes it is!” some abortion opponents cried from the gallery, drawing a loud gavel and sharp rebuke from House Speaker Pete Schwartzkopf, who threatened to clear the chamber.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/delaware-protects-abortion-rights-efforts-stall-47882364

A Democratic aide warned that HHS appointees’ “history of spreading misinformation” about abortion care and birth control “could be replicated now that they’re working in these official capacities.”

Democrats in the U.S. Senate are hoping they have the receipts to stop the anti-choice extremists in the nation’s top public health roles from spreading misinformation about reproductive health care.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) on Monday circulated an 11-page staff memo about the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Charmaine Yoest, who has made the evidence-free claim that abortion causes breast cancer, and Teresa Manning, who has said “contraception doesn’t work.” Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, flagged Yoest’s and Manning’s track records for other Democrats on the committee.

“Their appointments heighten my serious concerns about efforts taken thus far by the Trump administration on women’s health,” Murray said in a letteraccompanying the memo.

Murray’s “serious concerns” include President Trump’s dramatic expansion of the global gag rule; his budget’s plan to completely “defund”  Planned Parenthood, cutting off the health-care organization from Medicaid reimbursements, Title X family planning funding, and Violence Against Women Act grants that already face massive cuts despite the administration’s claims to the contrary; and his administration’s imminent blow to Obamacare’s popular birth control benefit.

“President Trump’s appointments are a clear signal that we can unfortunately expect these efforts to continue—and a reminder of the need to stay vigilant in our oversight,” Murray said.

Yoest and Manning are not the only anti-choice extremists rising to power under HHS Secretary Tom Price, who believes “there’s not one” woman who can’t afford birth control. The Trump administration won’t stop filling HHS with purveyors of anti-choice misinformation, including, most recently, former GOP Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, former Family Research Council Chief of Staff Shannon Royce, and former GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers (NC).

A senior Democratic aide warned that Yoest’s and Manning’s “history of spreading misinformation” documented in the memo “could be replicated now that they’re working in these official capacities.”

“It’s particularly important to make sure that people have the information to take that context into consideration, should the administration make dramatic policy changes or provide information that’s misleading,” the aide told Rewire in an interview.

Democrats can harness that information to make what could be easy political victories for Republicans and the White House anything but. The aide, for example, pointed to Democrats’ public resistance to shredding Title X family planning protections, requiring two tie-breaking votes from Vice President Mike Pence to pass the Senate.

Credible information could help Democrats counter habitual GOP-led efforts to wield the appropriations process against Title X and rebut any potential misinformation in Price’s scheduled budget testimony this week before the Senate Finance Committee.

“Having this sort of information is really important when you’re faced with threats like that,” the aide said.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/06/05/how-democrats-plan-counter-team-trumps-anti-choice-misinformation/

Take a lesson from Louisiana.

 As the Democratic Party continues soul-searching for how to rebuild after 2016, the debate regarding the centrality of abortion rights to progressive economic politics has reared its ugly head. Progressive leaders like Bernie Sanders and Democratic Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have dismissed the critical importance of abortion access, seemingly without a thought for what that means for the women who need it. If you want to know what happens when the Democratic Party embraces politicians who want to deny women access to abortion, look no further than here in Louisiana.

For years, Louisiana Democrats have joined their Republican colleagues in passing anti-choice legislation that has had the cumulative effect of putting abortion access all but out of reach for low-income women. Time and again, state politicians who think they know what is best for women have refuted scientific studies with junk science, ignored expert testimony, and dismissed the experiences of the women who have had abortions in order to champion anti-choice legislation and further their political careers.

Following eight years of the failed policies of Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, there was hope that the election of Gov. John Bel Edwards in 2016 might bring some progress. His support for raising the minimum wage and equal pay for women was lauded by state progressives. Yet, like so many Democrats before him, Edwards ran on an anti-choice platform. True to his word, Edwards began his term in office by being the only Democrat to sign an amicus brief to the U. S. Supreme Court in support of Texas’s restrictive abortion law House Bill 2, becoming bedfellows with Republican governors from Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Kentucky. Though H.B. 2 was eventually struck down, that same year, Edwards signed into law seven new abortion restrictions that shame and punish women for personal health care decisions.

Under Edwards’s leadership, Louisiana has been in a race to the bottom to make abortion a right in name alone — and it is poor women who are paying the price.

Certain Democratic leaders believe issues like abortion and access to reproductive care are distracting from what should be the party’s real focus: economics. But what this strategy fails to recognize is that for women, access to abortion drives their economics, and it is economics that often drives the need for abortion. If a woman is able to access an abortion, she is likely to be able to continue employment, continue earning an income. If a woman can’t access employment, she might not be able to afford raising a child and therefore seek an abortion. To ignore abortion in the debate about economic security and freedom ignores these cyclical realities and will only diminish Democratic enthusiasm among the party’s biggest voting bloc.

The economic burdens of not having access to abortion can negatively impact women’s economic trajectory for a lifetime and affect generations down the road. Studies show women who are denied an abortion are three times more likely to wind up in poverty after two years, compared to women in comparable financial situations who were able to get one. These long-lasting economic burdens placed on women cannot be overstated.

Today, Louisiana is facing a fiscal cliff that will result in further cuts to essential services for women and families when our situation is already dire. Nearly 1 million Louisiana women are of reproductive age, yet there is only one ob-gyn per 13,000 women. Louisiana has the seventh highest teen pregnancy rate, but legislators refuse to pass legislation that would mandate comprehensive sex education or even allow high school students to take a voluntary survey assessing their sexual risk behaviors. When it comes to abortion access, Louisiana has only three clinics left, down from seven in 2011, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute.

Edwards may claim to support women’s equality — a foundational promise of the Democratic Party — but the unfortunate state of women’s access to reproductive health care, including abortion, in Louisiana makes it clear his progressive priorities have run astray.

The Democratic Party is based on a shared set of values and principles — those cannot be abandoned. Democrats like Edwards are welcome to their personal beliefs but they are not welcome to impose those beliefs on the women of this party. Abortion is part of a continuum of reproductive health care, and health care is a human right. If Democrats want to maintain their claim to be the party that represents women’s interests, nothing less than a bold, united stance supporting reproductive rights and justice as a human right is acceptable.

Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and Chuck Schumer should reconsider their embrace of anti-abortion Democrats. Take it from the women of Louisiana — that strategy comes at an enormous cost.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a9976221/anti-abortion-pro-life-democrats-louisiana/

Anti-abortion groups are opening fake clinics near actual reproductive health care providers across the country in an attempt to shame and scare women into staying pregnant.

On an overcast Saturday morning in late May, several protesters had gathered outside of Hartford GYN Center, an abortion clinic in Connecticut. Many of them were clutching rosaries, and some bore signs decorated with images of beatific infants, with the implication that similar infants were in immediate danger of being murdered. They were, by their own description, facing down “the Evil One;” later in the day, a protester would tell me that an acquaintance of hers had once seen the devil himself crouched atop a different clinic and mistaken it for a gargoyle.

At one point, one of the protesters abandoned her post on the sidewalk to vigorously spray the clinic’s sign with holy water. “I’m a prayer warrior,” she explained when asked what she was doing there. “I pray outside, and if a woman goes by, I ask her if she’s pregnant. If she’s pregnant, I give her one of these cards and tell her about the Hartford Women’s Center.”

She handed me one such card as she spoke; it was emblazoned with an image of a distraught-looking white woman slumped on a nondescript staircase. “Pregnant? Scared?” it inquires. “You’re not alone.” It directs women to St. Gerard’s Center for Life, a Hartford-based Catholic organization that aims to help women facing crisis pregnancies “make life-affirming decisions.” On the back, a slew of official-sounding services are advertised: free pregnancy tests, free limited obstetrical ultrasounds, abortion pill reversal, and assistance in “recovering from post-abortive trauma.”

Hartford Women’s Center, which opened its doors for the first time this month, is the newest St. Gerard’s location. It’s a mere 30 feet from Hartford GYN Center, in the same office complex, with nearly identical signage. This is very confusing, and intentionally so. Hartford Women’s Center is what’s known as a crisis pregnancy center (CPC), a term used to describe anti-abortion organizations whose sole purpose is to convince women to carry pregnancies to term, oftentimes by posing as legitimate reproductive health care providers.

CPCs typically employ a variety of deceptive tactics, including posting misleading ads and establishing locations next to clinics and hospitals, with the intent of luring women into their offices. Once women are in their clutches, they bombard them with spurious information: that abortions are extremely painful and perilous, that ending an unwanted pregnancy may result in permanent psychological damage, that an abortion might not even be necessary because miscarriage is so common. In some cases, staff will even lie about the fetus’ gestational age in order to push the pregnancy past the legal window for termination. There are currently over 3500 CPCs operating in America, compared with around 800 abortion clinics.

The card St. Gerard’s volunteers hand out outside of Hartford GYN Center

“The idea of a crisis pregnancy center being in your neighborhood is one thing,” said Amanda Kifferly, the director of patient advocacy at Hartford GYN Center, which has been providing abortion care and reproductive services to its patients since 1981. “And then for it to be in the same complex as an already licensed institution within the community—I think it increases the potential risk and damage that can happen.”

Although Hartford Women’s Center resembles a legitimate family planning clinic on its surface, it offers basically none of the vital health care services women can access next door at Hartford GYN Center: no STI testing, no well women exams, no prenatal care, no birth control. Women who end up in the center are told that abortion is murder, that several forms of contraception are also murder, and that choosing to terminate a pregnancy could have ruinous repercussions, including PTSD, breast cancer, and infertility. They’re urged to carry their pregnancies to term and promised financial and emotional support if they choose to do so. (In addition to the services advertised on its card, St. Gerard’s currently offers free baby clothing and diapers for women who enroll in its education program, social service referrals, and baptism preparation for infants and mothers alike.)

“We want to give these women support to give birth to their children,” Leticia Velasquez, the director of St. Gerard’s, told me. “Whatever it takes to have a woman give birth, we’re there for them.”

A CPC… has a single aim, and that aim is make sure that the woman carries her pregnancy to term.

According to the employees of Hartford GYN Center and pro-choice groups in the state, “whatever it takes” often involves unethical and deceptive tactics. “They’re obviously setting up in our complex as an opportunity to mislead our patients specifically,” said Kifferly. “And they’re appearing to look legitimate by taking our name.”

The proprietors of Hartford Women’s Center don’t deny that they’re trying to intercept Hartford GYN’s patients, though they insist that the help they offer women is sincere and substantial, lasting up to the baby’s second birthday. According to Velasquez, about 75 percent of the women they serve start out trying to go to Hartford GYN Center, and she expects that number to rise given their new proximity to their adversary. “That’s why we’re here,” she said. “We want to offer a choice at the door of the abortion clinic.”

A 2015 report from the pro-choice group NARAL investigated 27 crisis pregnancy centers in Connecticut, and found “a consistent pattern of misinformation, deceptive advertising, and blatant lies about reproductive health.” This is tantamount to a public health crisis, the organization warns. “If you’re an individual who is not used to receiving medical advice from a licensed medical practitioner… there’s no red flag for you,” said Sarah Croucher, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut. “You think that you’re getting medical advice, and you’re not.”

“What’s really dangerous about someone walking into a CPC is that CPC has a single aim, and that aim is make sure that the woman carries her pregnancy to term,” she explained. “And that’s not an aim that’s about caring about women and what’s in their best interests and helping them make decisions that are right for them. [Crisis pregnancy centers] will give whatever garbage information they want to achieve their aim.”

On Saturday, May 20, the Hartford Women’s Center held its inaugural event. Its door, which is about 10 feet from the ramp leading to Hartford GYN Center, was propped open invitingly, revealing a waiting room decorated with several framed photographs of landscapes, as well as a florid print of the words “You are loved.”

When I first encountered Leticia Velasquez, she was reclining genially in an armchair in the corner of this makeshift reception area, greeting each new arrival with enthusiasm. On the collar of her blazer was a minuscule opal pin in the shape of two baby feet; beside her was a large sign that read, in bright marker, “WELCOME to our Open House.” There is something very maternal and comforting about Velasquez. She speaks effusively and rapidly, switching with adeptness between religious, personal, and scientific arguments against abortion. Whenever logical inconsistencies threaten to undermine her wholehearted appeal—which is frequently—she shifts gears, speaking from personal experience and emphasizing the suffering she’s witnessed due to sex outside of marriage.

When asked about her organization’s stance on contraception, for instance, her response was assured. “Most women who come in here are here because the contraception didn’t work, OK?” she said. “One woman had a Norplant: It’s supposed to work! I said, ‘Well, obviously it didn’t.’ Because it was three years old, the last month, she got pregnant.”

“Pregnancy is sex working,” Velasquez said. “That’s the whole reason we have it, physically speaking. Now, that might not be your intention,” she added, likely recalling an incident a few minutes earlier in which I’d asked her if a statue of the pregnant Virgin Mary was St. Gerard, exposing myself as a true heathen (St. Gerard, as it turns out, is a man). “But the mistake we make is to go into it very casually, thinking that this one-night encounter won’t affect the rest of my life. It will. It can.”

Like Dr. Janet Smith, Velasquez seems to believe that sex outside of marriage is inherently calamitous. “Contraception gives you that false feelings that sex has nothing to do with procreation, and it also kind of shields you from making dumb moves: sleeping with someone with a disease, sleeping with crazy person that’s gonna haunt you and stalk you,” she clarified. “There’s a lot of hurt in society now, and people say depression and suicide, it’s increasing. All the things that contraception was supposed to cure… a lot of them were caused by contraception.”

The exam room at Hartford GYN Center, left, and Hartford Women’s Center’s ultrasound machine

The Hartford Women’s Center is equipped to give women “limited medical ultrasounds,” Velasquez told me, in order to “acquaint the mother with her child, and [ascertain] that it’s a healthy pregnancy” —she paused, nearly imperceptibly, then corrected herself— “not a healthy pregnancy, but that it’s in the right place.” If the pregnancy is not in the right place, the Center can refer women elsewhere, but that’s about it. “We don’t do surgery,” she said. “Our medical doctor is not an [obstetrician]. She’s a family practice. She reads the scans.” (Hartford GYN Center has two licensed ultrasound technicians on staff, as well as numerous licensed OB/GYNs.)

It’s unclear what a “limited medical ultrasound” is. It’s not a term used in the medical community, according to Croucher of NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut. It also doesn’t seem to appear in any reputable, legitimate sources, save for one: In 2005, the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine released a statement condemning the practice of performing ultrasounds for “bonding and reassurance purposes.” Scans should only be performed by licensed medical professionals who have been trained to recognize medically important conditions, the organization warned: “Any other use of ‘limited medical ultrasound’ may constitute practice of medicine without a license.”

Despite this, Velasquez is quick to criticize Hartford GYN Center for their lack of services. “As far as I know, their tagline is ‘Abortion is 100 percent of what we do,'” she said. (Their tagline is “Unsurpassed excellence in women’s health care.”)

Pregnancy is sex working. That’s the whole reason we have it, physically speaking.

“I don’t see job counseling, I don’t see looking for housing or paying first month’s rent, or parenting classes or adoption plans,” she added. “I don’t see that listed as ‘services.'” Under the “other services” section of the Hartford GYN Center’s website, several things are listed: pregnancy testing, ultrasound exams, birth control, STI testing and treatment, emergency contraception, colposcopies, and gynecological care. They also offer education and support, including options counseling and adoption counseling and services.

In her role as patient advocate at Hartford GYN Center, Kifferly constantly fields calls from women who are considering abortion care. When someone is solid in their decision, she respects their autonomy. “If someone calls me and says, ‘I’m calling to make an appointment for an abortion,’ I’m not going to say, ‘Oh, well, let’s take a step back. Have you thought about motherhood?'” she said. If that same caller were to express doubt, however, she says she would offer them comprehensive options counseling, including discussing the potential of motherhood and adoption.

“I’ve absolutely witnessed patients come into the clinic, and I’ve assisted in them having pregnancies and carrying to term and choosing parenthood, and I’ve assisted in adoptions. All of those things are pretty common,” she continued. “As a woman, I have been in the situation of pregnancy scares and pregnancy, and I know that you know what’s in your heart, and you also know your body well enough to articulate that.”

St. Gerard’s is an affiliate of Heartbeat International (HBI), the biggest crisis pregnancy center network in the world. HBI has over 2000 affiliated organizations in 50 countries, and they also operate Option Line, a deceptively secular-looking 24-hour pregnancy helpline that answers over 600 calls and chats a day. In March of 2017 alone, Option Line volunteers offered counseling to over 28,000 women. The organization is experienced in using Google’s AdWords program to boost their visibility, especially in conjunction with abortion-related searches—in their 2014 annual report, HBI boasted that “a woman who makes a Google search such as ‘pregnant and scared’ finds a local Heartbeat International affiliate or Option Line in her search.”

Although there are no explicitly religious references on the Option Line website, it agenda is obviously and extremely Catholic—which is to say, staunchly anti-abortion and anti-contraception. “Last year alone, 50 million babies—created in the image of God—were silently put to death before they were even born,” laments the HBI website, on a page dedicated to Option Line. “You probably know someone who has had an abortion. Was there something you could have done to prevent it?”

Option Line is rife with misinformation about abortion and contraception, though it has the appearance of a legitimate medical service, at least aesthetically. (Its logo suspiciously resembles that of Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill.) On every single informational page, visitors are referred to HBI-affiliated crisis pregnancy centers in their area, though the true goal of these centers is only vaguely alluded to, often after a wall of official-seeming medical platitudes. “These centers don’t perform or refer for abortions, but they have a lot of information about all your options,” reads a cheery disclaimer at the bottom of a page entitled “Considering Abortion.” “Many of them are even able to give you a free ultrasound.”

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/how-anti-abortion-zealots-pose-as-medical-professionals-to-trick-pregnant-women

The girl’s mom says he objected due to “personal beliefs.”

A 13-year-old in Albuquerque was prescribed an IUD to treat menstrual issues when other forms of birth control didn’t work, according to Yahoo! Beauty. Her doctor also prescribed her an anxiety medication, a pain reliever, and the hormone misoprostol, which softens the cervix to make IUD insertion easier. But when her mom went to Walgreens to fill these three prescriptions, the pharmacist allegedly agreed to fill the first two but said he couldn’t give her the misoprostol because of his “personal beliefs,” telling her to try another Walgreens.

The mother, known as M.S. in two complaints filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and the Southwest Women’s Law Center, told the Albuquerque Journal that she began driving to another Walgreens before turning around to protest the pharmacist’s decision. She told him that “he was discriminating against me, that he should be ashamed for judging us, that he didn’t know my daughter’s medical history or her complications or conversation with her doctor. That he didn’t know what the medication was for,” she said. “And he just looks at me and says, ‘Oh, I have a pretty good idea.‘” He may have been referring to the fact that misoprostol can induce abortions.

In June of 2012, another Walgreens pharmacist refused to give a woman named Susanne Koestner birth control pills, the Albuquerque Journal reports. As a result of her complaint, the store agreed to fill prescriptions for birth control — and everything else — “as efficiently as other prescriptions without imposing any burden on the customer.”

However, a Walgreens representative told Yahoo! Beauty that its policy lets pharmacists “step away from a transaction to which they may have a moral objection.” But it also “requires the pharmacist or other employee to refer the transaction to another employee or manager on duty to complete the customer’s request.”

The ACLU’s complaint points out that traveling to another pharmacy can be difficult for many people, particularly those without cars or other nearby options. It also asks Walgreens to prevent this from happening again.

“Religious liberty does not mean the right to discriminate against others,” it reads. “Walgreens should take reasonable steps to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices, but it cannot do so by imposing additional discriminatory burdens on women.”

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/walgreens-pharmacist-iud-hormone-complaints