Is this the year when we could lose protection of our abortion rights?

activists gather in the Utah State Capitol Rotunda to protest abortion bans happening in Utah and around the country, in Salt Lake City. About 39,000 people received treatment from Planned Parenthood of Utah in 2018 under a federal family planning program called Title X. The organization this week announced it is pulling out of the program rather than abide by a new Trump administration rule prohibiting clinics from referring women for abortions. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

Just four years after the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision strengthened the precedent and promise of 1973’s Roe v. Wade, Louisiana’s medically unnecessary regulation, Act 620, has given the Supreme Court the opportunity to weaken or outright overturn federal protections for abortion care.

Despite Act 620 raising the exact same issue as Whole Woman’s Health — a medically unnecessary requirement that a physician have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the procedure — the outcome of June Medical Services, LLC v. Rebekah Gee is far from certain and unlikely to be as simple as a “win” or “loss.” Instead, experts are watching for a slate of possibilities — most of which are sure to further exacerbate the decade-long, exponential increase in reproductive health clinic closures and burdensome hurdles to abortion care around the country.

As we mark the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, we’re forced to ask: Is this the year when we could lose protection of our abortion rights?

Anti-abortion tactics

Incrementalism, which involves “long game” tactics, has been part of the anti-abortion strategy since Roe decriminalized abortion 47 years ago. Constitutional amendments are famously a long shot (just ask Equal Rights Amendment activists who fell a mere three states short of the required 38), so establishing constitutional rights for fetuses has never been a serious focus of the structured part of the anti-choice movement.

Instead, the movement has been chipping away here and there, adding medically unnecessary requirements and expensive, time-consuming blockades that anti-choice activists knew would go wholly unnoticed by monied constituents. Targeting individual doctors, local legislatures and even individual patients was quietly effective. By the time the Tea Party wave swarmed in and turned up the volume and intensity of its attacks over the past 10 years, the legal landscape throughout our country was set.

Due to this existing landscape and the eccentricities of the Supreme Court itself, all of the legal experts consulted by Truthout on June Medicalexpressed two important caveats to their analyses: One, the Supreme Court can always do whatever it wants as long as it has the votes. Two, neither Roe nor Whole Woman’s Health needs to be directly overturned or even referenced in the decision to do significant damage to the future of abortion access in this country. All of the individual challenges from individual states and cities trying to defend unconstitutional abortion restrictions plus all of those from clinics, doctors or patients trying to strike down those restrictions mean that there is always another case in the circuit court pipeline.

Whatever happens in the month of June when the decision on the June Medicalcase is announced, experts are planning tempered reactions — not just because of the ideological shift on the court since Whole Woman’s Health, but also because the opportunity to hear the next abortion case is never far off. And the Trump-era appointments have provided all the ingredients that lawyer, author and Abortion Care Network board member David S. Cohen explained to Truthout three years ago would be needed to nullify Roe:

While … Cohen conceded that it “wouldn’t be hard at all with committed justices,” he described the path to an ultra-right-wing court as long and challenging. How challenging depends on the timing of potential vacancies and the willingness of Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans to hold up confirmation of any justice who won’t commit to upholding existing precedent, or — in “court speak,” upholding the “rule of law.”

And now?

“There’s no doubt they’re going to do damage,” Cohen told Truthout. “There’s so many different ways this could come out — but we certainly have the justices with beliefs on this court right now that are more likely than not to strip away abortion rights.”

Justices could do that under the specious guise of “protecting the patient’s health,” even though this exact same provision was shown to have zero benefit for patients to outweigh its clear burdens.

In real life, the “promise of Roe” never reached those who needed it most: the poor, youth, people of color, LGBTQIA people and rural populations.

What lay people think of as “settled law” rarely is, according to Diana Kasdan, director for judicial strategy at the Center for Reproductive Rights (the legal team representing the Louisiana clinics and their patients).

“These laws are all modeled on each other,” Kasdan told Truthout of the anti-choice provisions. “The states introduce them for the same purpose: to shut down clinics. And Louisiana knew it would work in shutting down clinics because that’s what happened in Texas.”

Currently, all four remaining Louisiana clinics are open, pending the outcome of June Medical — despite being attacked directly in the justification for the law itself and for the attorney general to fight to reinstate Act 620. In the press release tied to the attorney general’s office following its June Medical brief, AG Jeff Landry pulled an impressive amount of misinformation out of the air to share with constituents:

“Women deserve better than incompetent providers who put profits over people,” said Solicitor General Murrill. “Louisiana is not Texas, and our case is distinguishable from Hellerstedt; our facts, our evidence, and our generally applicable medical standards are all different. This bipartisan legislation is necessary because Louisiana abortion providers have a long documented history of medical malpractice, disciplinary actions, and violations of health and safety standards.”

In his role at Abortion Care Network, Cohen is connected to all the independent (i.e., not Planned Parenthood affiliated) member clinics around the country where over 60 percent of abortions are performed annually — including in Louisiana. His response to the AG’s allegations was clear and brief: “Abortion is just as safe and complications are just as rare in Louisiana as anywhere else.”

Kasdan confirmed that no evidence of unsafe practices was presented to the court.

“In fact, if you look at the record, the provider in this case has been providing abortions for decades and, in all that time, maybe four women had to go to the hospital from some kind of emergency care,” Kasdan said. Statistically, this is on par with the national average of one-tenth of 1 percent of abortion patients ultimately seeking such follow-up care.

None of the experts Truthout consulted were surprised by the specious nature of the “evidence” from the state or by the speed with which the court chose its Whole Woman’s Health follow-up. What’s more, whatever the outcome of June Medical may be, going forward we can expect more of the same from the dozens of state houses hostile to abortion rights.

Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of the youth-focused and led URGE: Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, says current uncertainties about Roe underscore the importance of building community and increasing access.

“I think that (our) folks are clearer and clearer that we cannot and we will not wait for the courts to deliver justice — especially this Supreme Court,” McGuire told Truthout. “In this moment we know that the Supreme Court is not going to deliver justice to our communities. And, so, what that feels like on the ground? It feels like people who are really sick of low standards — including, frankly, the low standard of Roe v. Wade in the first place.”

McGuire expressed a frustration heard and repeated over and over by activists, advocates, and social-justice minded legislators and academics. In real life, the “promise of Roe” never reached those who needed it most: the poor, youth, people of color, LGBTQIA people and rural populations.

“This was never enough for our communities,” McGuire said, echoing sentiments from Quita Tinsley, co-director of ARC-Southeast, who spoke with Truthout in December. Both advocates audibly sighed when asked about the impacts of Roe. A legal right without access is a fractured, if not broken, promise.

“It was always focused too heavily on this legal right to abortion,” McGuire said, pointing to the fact that despite this right, many people cannot actually obtain the abortions they need. “To be clear, for some people that legal right has saved and changed their lives. And for many people it has been meaningless….We cannot have basic dignity and humanity if we cannot make our own decisions about sex, our bodies and pregnancy.”

The Supreme Court has all the power

Cohen’s career fighting for individuals’ rights to make those decisions for themselves has meant that, when it comes to court cases, he tends not to see the glass as half empty or half full. He’s incredibly mindful of case law history and how past justices have gone off the rails in ways both obvious to the public (such as the Citizens United decision) and in ways that were subtler and more difficult to convey (like the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act).

According to Cohen, the June Medical decision could present an opportunity to further cement past Supreme Court rulings.

“I can see a way that June Medical can win this case by appealing to Chief Justice Roberts [and] maybe Justice Kavanaugh [on the grounds that] lower courts need to listen to the Supreme Court,” Cohen explained. “They can’t ignore Supreme Court precedent [i.e. Whole Woman’s Health]. [They could] appeal to the institutional argument that the Supreme Court having decided something in 2016, you can’t just let the lower courts ignore that. I could see that as a winning argument, but I think it’s incredibly unlikely.”

It is, however, a reminder that any prediction about a win or loss for “either side” following the March 3 oral arguments or the June decision announcement must include context exploring the consequences for low-income and rural folks, the LGBTQIA community, people of color, the undocumented and new immigrants, and other marginalized groups.

Among the practically limitless minutiae of possible outcomes, Cohen is taking his cues from the current political climate (don’t let anyone tell you the Supreme Court isn’t political), the case history and personalities of the sitting justices, and the tea leaves available to the chosen few who have been present at past oral arguments and decisions.

“I think much more likely is that we have the justices with an ideology that says that the Supreme Court has gone too far with its abortion jurisprudence and we need to rein it in,” said Cohen. “[Now], do we need to rein it in by just saying that it really is a state by state analysis on admitting privileges? So, then, admitting privileges are unconstitutional in Texas, but not Louisiana? They could do that. [Or, they] could rule that Whole Woman’s Health was just wrong. They could say Casey [Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992] was wrong. They could say Roe was wrong.”

The issue of “standing”

What these decisions come down to, Kasdan explained, is the issue of “standing.”

“What they’ve done — at the last minute, the eleventh hour, at the Supreme Court — is said, ‘Actually, the providers don’t have standing to bring these claims on behalf of [patients]’,” said Kasdan. “That was not raised in Texas in the Whole Woman’s Health case — probably because for over 50 years the Supreme Court has recognized that providers have standing to represent the constitutional rights of the people they care for because it would be incredibly burdensome and impractical to expect a pregnant woman to run out to find a lawyer and bring litigation at the moment [when] she’s also jumping through every hurdle possible to access abortion care.”

It sounds like settled case law. Unfortunately, not only do anti-abortion groups have what McGuire accurately described as “a kind of creepy resilience,” but it’s not hyperbole to expect they’ll use that resilience to keep raising the issue of standing until they get a decision they like. And a decision that strips standing from clinic owners and physicians — who both directly face consequences in the form of expensive regulations imposed on their businesses and in accordance with their position as caretakers for their patients — could conceivably end advocates’ ability to challenge these laws at all once they’re passed. If abortion providers can’t bring lawsuits on behalf of their patients, it’s much less likely that such lawsuits would ever see the light of day.

“It would be a way for them to do something that looks like it’s, you know, wonky and procedural, but really destroy abortion rights in a broad way,” Cohen said. “The third-party standing issue would be a way for them to gut almost all abortion litigation in a way that no one would really understand.”

Roe in real life: a promise that falls short

For all the talk this week about the promise of Roe v. Wade, McGuire sighed when asked what comes to mind when she hears that phrase.

“What comes to mind for me is the clarity that that promise was never for me or my people or my community,” said McGuire. “That promise was not for women of color. That promise was not for poor women. That promise was not for young people. To the extent that it ever has existed, that promise has been broken too many times.”

McGuire added that even with Roe still in effect, “lots of people in Alabama and Georgia and Ohio can’t get an abortion,” adding, “If we didn’t have Roe that would still be true.”

For more than a decade, McGuire has organized with communities located too far from the sanctified Supreme Court building in the capital to be comforted or empowered by a decision that merely decriminalized abortion. While a loss or weakening of Roe would signal to anti-abortion legislators that they can hit the gas on both state and federal laws, nothing in Roe or the subsequent cases that altered or cemented precedent over the ensuing 47 years ensured access to abortion care.

Roe doesn’t open or fund clinics. Roe doesn’t put future abortion providers through medical school. Roe hasn’t stopped state legislators from imposing thousands of restrictions. Roe can’t reach the patients whose actions or bodies have been criminalized by other policies and laws.

Ultimately, it’s not the duty of the Supreme Court to advance abortion access. Under the Constitution, that job belongs to legislators — which means it’s up to communities to organize and demand more than an end to restrictions. Without explicit protections for providers and patients, even a “win” in June leaves the door open to revisit this issue as often as annually.

What good is a promise that can’t be kept?

“I am not sitting with an existential dread over whether or not we will have Roe,” McGuire said. “I am sitting with my fierce determination to fight for something better.”

Source: https://www.salon.com/2020/01/25/roe-v-wade-is-being-chipped-away-will-we-lose-it-altogether-this-year_partner/?fbclid=IwAR3b8Qt5vub3StnH5ZRyX2snQZtu_sQ9_4lZ7CCembgh287921yiwOGj0Ps

Texas has become a notorious battleground over abortion rights. Here’s one person’s story.

Texas is the state with the most cities that are more than 100 miles away from an abortion clinic. Those who have the resources will always be able to get the support they need, while marginalized people continue to be disproportionately affected. The state lost more than half its abortion providers following the 2013 passage of HB2—which imposed medically unnecessary requirements on providers and has since been overturned, though many clinics haven’t re-opened.

What Texas state law says about abortion:

The state bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless the pregnant person has a life-threatening medical condition, or if the fetus has a severe abnormality. But some cities, like El Paso and Waco, only have providers that perform abortions until 16 weeks; leaving many with no choice but to travel to get the care they need.

Lawmakers based the gestational limit on the inaccurate idea that a fetus may feel pain by 20 weeks. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that there is no evidence supporting this idea before viability—which occurs around 24 weeks—and ACOG says that the ability to distinguish pain from touch wouldn’t develop until well into the third trimester.

Under The Woman’s Right to Know Act, enacted in 2003 and amended in 2011 and 2017, people are forced to receive biased in-person counseling. The law also requires that:

• Patients receive inaccurate information about abortion and the development of pregnancy; like a risk of breast cancer, infertility, and the ability of a fetus to feel pain. They must also receive information about alternatives to abortion, including parenting and adoption, as well as their right to receive child support.
• Patients wait 24 hours between getting the state-mandated counseling and having the abortion, which means most people have to visit the clinic two or more times. (Those living more than 100 miles away from their nearest clinic can have the waiting period waived.)
• Providers force people to have a mandatory ultrasound 24 hours before the abortion, too—despite this being medically unnecessary for most people. During the ultrasound, the provider must describe what is shown on the screen, and give the pregnant person the option to view the image and/or listen to the heart tone if available.
• The same doctor who performs the ultrasound must perform the abortion, too, which means people aren’t able to bring an ultrasound they’ve received from their primary care physician or OB/GYN first, and if the abortion provider suddenly becomes unavailable after performing the ultrasound the process must start all over again with a new doctor.
• Abortions performed beyond 16 weeks must take place at an ambulatory surgical center—which have to adhere to different standards than other abortion clinics, like regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing.
• People under 18 must have parental consent from one parent or legal guardian on the day of the abortion (not the ultrasound), unless they get a judicial bypass from court; a complicated process that must be done in a person’s county of residence. The process can also take weeks, and involves proving to a judge that you are capable of making this decision on your own. (For help getting a judicial bypass in Texas, teens can call or text Jane’s Due Process at 1-866-999-5263.)

Public funding for abortion (including state health plan coverage) is already banned in Texas—except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. But most people can’t use their private health insurance to cover their abortion either, so they pay for the costs completely out of pocket. This is thanks to a 2017 law that banned coverage for “non emergency abortions” and with no exceptions for rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities. People can purchase a costly premium through their private health plan for coverage, but millions of Texans are unable to afford basic insurance as it is. Recent data shows that, for the second year in a row, Texas has the highest rate of uninsured people in the nation.

What it’s like seeking an abortion in Texas:

This is one person’s story.

Nick, who is trans, was 26 when they needed to access an abortion in Houston, Texas. As a storyteller with We Testify Texas—a leadership program that centers the voices of those who have had abortions—they’re committed to ending stigma and shifting the narrative surrounding abortion in the U.S. Nick also volunteers with Clinic Access Support Network (CASN) where they provide transportation to those needing an abortion in the Houston area.

They knew right away abortion was the right decision

“I immediately knew I wasn’t in a position to be pregnant at the time—not emotionally, not financially, and in practical terms I just knew right away,” Nick told VICE. They say the experience taught them a lot about what they wanted for their life; helping them re-examine how they felt about having children. “While I grew up thinking I’d never have an abortion…when the time came, I knew exactly what was right for my life. But I also knew the government wouldn’t make it easy for me,” they said.

They had to call multiple clinics to get an appointment

Nick found out they were pregnant on a Sunday, and the next morning, they immediately called Planned Parenthood. “Planned Parenthood was the first clinic that popped into my head, but they weren’t able to schedule my first ultrasound appointment until the following week,” they told VICE. Although there were multiple abortion clinics in Houston at the time, Nick says they were only able to find two on Google. “The second clinic I called was able to get me in for an ultrasound the next day,” Nick said. “I made sure to read the clinics’ website thoroughly, because I knew about crisis pregnancy centers and I wanted to go somewhere legitimate.”

They were scared of being misgendered

“I told the clinic right away that I’m trans, but I ended up crying on the phone because I was so afraid of being misgendered,” Nick told VICE. They said the patient advocate who answered the phone was completely understanding, and said she’d note everything in the system so the clinic staff was aware. But while people across the gender spectrum have abortions, Nick says gender-affirming care is still a new concept for clinics—even though it’s such a necessary part of healthcare. “For me, I experience gender dysphoria brought on through social settings, which means that the way I’m treated within my community—like being misgendered, or seeking care in a gendered setting—can have a direct impact on how I feel about my body. And in turn, this can actually cause me to experience physical dysphoria, as well, because the way I look is causing people to treat me this way,” Nick said.

They charged the procedure on a credit card

Nick says they paid a total of $550 for the ultrasound, sedation, and the procedure itself—which is around the average cost for a first-trimester abortion. Nick put it on their credit card. And while they didn’t know about abortion funds that could help lower the cost, Nick says they wouldn’t have taken the money. “I know for some people, the cost of an abortion can have devastating effects—some may get caught up in a payday loan cycle, and others may not be able to access the abortion they need at all. For me, it meant paying it off over time. But I wouldn’t want to take away the assistance someone else may need, when—luckily—I had a credit card I could charge it to,” Nick said.

They delayed the appointment until they could get a ride to the clinic

“I actually didn’t know about CASN at the time, and they could have provided me with transportation support. But even though I did struggle with how to get there, I really needed to be around someone I knew and trusted, so I decided to push the appointment for my abortion back a few days so my partner could drive me,” they said. Nick had their abortion about a week after finding out they were pregnant, which is the average time it takes Texans following the passage of HB2, according to one study.

Their counselor was helpful despite having to provide biased information

“My counselor was really great, but it was frustrating that because of regulations, she had to tell me inaccurate information surrounding the procedure,” they said. Nick says their counselor had to provide materials that claimed abortion increased the risk of breast cancer and infertility, but that she went over the materials quickly and still emphasized that abortion is safe. (In fact, it’s 14 times safer than giving birth.) “She respected my name, used my correct pronouns, and really created a safe space for me during a vulnerable time,” Nick said . The counselor also gave them a brochure that the clinic created in response to protestors harassing patients outside. “It said even though the protestors are yelling at me, they don’t know my life or my reasons for being here, and I was a good person who was making the decision that felt right for me.”

The protestors were awful and the ultrasound was humiliating

“The protestors were awful—I always thought that if I was being harassed that I would give them the finger or yell at them. But being in such a vulnerable position where I’m seeking out this really personal medical care, and having half a dozen strangers harassing me, it’s not so easy to shrug off.” They also say the experience made them realize just how invasive and downright abusive abortion laws in Texas actually are. “It’s humiliating to be told what’s on the ultrasound, as if I don’t already know what’s inside my own uterus. It’s humiliating to look a counselor in the eye and listen to things you both know aren’t true. It’s humiliating to feel like I’m put in time out for 24 hours in order to make a decision I already know is right for me.”

They hope for a future with trans-inclusive abortion care

“There’s a lot of language in the pro-choice movement that calls for more inclusive framing, but we also need to focus on making abortion care gender-affirming,” Nick said. Healthcare providers have “dead-named” them, or used their birth name, and while Nick doesn’t believe it’s intended maliciously, they feel providers could still make changes in order to prevent this.

“I’ve visited a doctor’s office that used forms with fields for our preferred name, legal name, and pronouns. It’s a small change that can improve the experience other trans and non-binary folks have—especially for those who experience gender dysphoria that is brought on by social interactions, like me,” they said. Nick also believes providers could consider the messages in their office; specifically the waiting room where decor is often found. Is there gendered imagery in the waiting room, or are there things more neutral as well? Is there an emphasis on women’s services, or is there more inclusive language about reproductive health being used?

On a larger scale, Nick believes providers need to have more conversations with trans folks, including those who experience physical gender dysphoria; which can be influenced by having a vagina or carrying a pregnancy. “Not every trans person is going to feel the way I do, and it’s important to learn more about these experiences in order to make the appropriate changes,” they said.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7kz9wz/what-its-like-to-get-an-abortion-in-texas?fbclid=IwAR3GBKHhDDShXTY_WnueFg7om8wmYj0nu0ZlAHtR2bX0MDqcuXXGdaI-LA8

Anti-choice restrictions could soon fall by the wayside in Virginia and Rhode Island.

After winning control of the Virginia General Assembly in last November’s elections, state Democrats are moving forward with a bill to roll back anti-choice restrictions. WSLS 10 / YouTube

Virginia 

The state’s new Democratic majorities are moving quickly to unravel the web of anti-choice restrictions enacted by Republicans in the past two decades.

Democrats in a Virginia House committee moved a omnibus pro-choice bill, HB 980, to the house floor on a party line vote last Wednesday, the Washington Post reported. A day later, the senate committee on health and education approved a companion bill, SB 733, by a 9-6 vote.

The legislation would make it legal for nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives to perform first trimester abortions; eliminate the state’s forced 24-hour waiting period and ultrasound requirement; end inaccurate counseling for abortion patients; and make more clinics eligible to provide abortion care by removing targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws.

Advocates mounted an unsuccessful legal challenge to these abortion restrictions in 2018. Ninety-two percent of Virginia counties don’t have an abortion clinic, according to Guttmacher.

Before Virginia Democrats won control in last year’s elections, abortion rights advocates told Rewire.News that they hoped the new legislative majority—in addition to undoing the state’s anti-choice restrictions, like the current omnibus bills would do—might codify abortion protections into state law, following the lead of states like Vermont. Codifying abortion rights would ensure abortion remains legal in Virginia should conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.

“If ever there is a time to protect a woman’s bodily autonomy, that time is now,” state Sen. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond), sponsor of the state senate’s omnibus abortion bill, told the Associated Press.

Georgia 

State Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick (D-Lithonia) introduced a bill that would allow abortion patients to forgo a series of medically unnecessary requirements designed to deter people from obtaining abortion care.

The bill, the “Women’s Right to Immediate Access Act” or HB 746, would allow patients to bypass the state’s 24-hour forced waiting period, mandated ultrasound, and state-approved anti-choice counseling. The bill stands little chance of being debated in the Republican-controlled Georgia House of Representatives, as Republican leaders have said they won’t consider abortion-related bills while the state’s near-total abortion ban is tied up in court, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported.

Rhode Island

After passing the Reproductive Privacy Act last year, despite pushback from anti-choice Democrats, the Democratic-held Rhode Island legislature will soon consider legislation to ensure state employee health insurance and Medicaid cover abortion care.

State Rep. Liana Cassar (D-Barrington) and state Sen. Bridget Valverde (D-East Greenwich) held a press conference last Wednesday to announce the legislation, which the Providence Journal reports will be introduced this week. Democrats control both chambers of the Rhode Island General Assembly.

The legislation would abolish the ban on state employee health plans and the Medicaid program covering abortion costs.

“Right now, there are people for whom there is a barrier to access to abortion solely as a result of their insurance coverage,” said Cassar, who intends to introduce the bill in the house. “Access to safe, legal abortion includes economic access. Disproportionately, this economic barrier to access impacts poor women and women of color.”

A spokesperson for Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) said she “is open to reviewing any legislation designed to protect Rhode Islanders’ access to safe and affordable health care,” according to the Journal.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2020/01/27/virginia-democrats-advance-omnibus-pro-choice-bill-spotlight-on-the-states/

Ohio was one of seven states that tried to ban abortion in the first trimester in 2019. This is how one person got care in such a hostile state.

In April 2019, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill that would have criminalized abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy. It was blocked on July 3—a week before it would have gone into effect—but in November lawmakers introduced another attempt to criminally penalize providers and patients as well.

Under the (blocked) six-week ban, abortion providers could have faced up to a year in prison. The most recent proposed legislation would create new types of criminal offenses such as “abortion murder” and “aggravated abortion assault”; offenses which are punishable by up to life in prison and the death penalty, respectively. It also includes a provision that would require physicians to attempt to re-implant ectopic pregnancies (which can be life-threatening) into the uterus, even though no such procedure exists.

What Ohio state law says about abortion:

As the law stands now, abortions are banned after 20 weeks of pregnancy (from fertilization), which is based on the inaccurate claim that a fetus may feel pain at that stage. There are exceptions if the pregnancy isn’t viable, or if the pregnant person faces irreversible damage to their health, or if their life is in danger, but no exceptions if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Most Ohio counties don’t have an abortion provider. There are currently just nine clinics in the state; two of which only provide medication abortion, which is only FDA-approved for use up to 10 weeks. Clinics must adhere to medically unnecessary standards, such as having “written transfer agreements” with a hospital that’s within 30 miles of the provider; publicly funded hospitals are banned from entering into such agreements with abortion providers. These rules have affected the operation of clinics, including The Center For Choice in Toledo which had to close after providing care for more than 30 years.

Here’s an overview of other current restrictions in Ohio:

People must receive biased in-person pre-abortion counseling which is designed by the state to influence their decision. Providers are required to inform them of the fetus’s gestational age and the risks associated with an abortion and carrying to term.
Ultrasounds are required before every abortion. The provider doesn’t have to describe what the ultrasound shows, but they do have to offer the option to view the screen, which would include imaging of the heart activity.
People must wait at least 24 hours after the ultrasound before having the abortion; requiring at least two visits to the clinic, and three for those who opt for a medication abortion.
The same doctor who performed the ultrasound must also perform the abortion, which means people can’t use sonograms from their primary physicians or OB/GYNs, and if the doctor intending to perform the abortion suddenly becomes unavailable, the process must start from the beginning with a new provider.
People under 18 must have written consent from one parent or legal guardian to access an abortion, unless they obtain a judicial bypass; or consent from a judge instead. The teen must get a judicial bypass in the same county where they live, and the judge is required to ask a series of questions based on medically inaccurate information. (Minors can contact abortion provider Preterm for help learning about the steps to obtain a judicial bypass; including local courthouses.)
Insurance for public employees and health plans purchased under the Affordable Care Act are banned from covering abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. But some private insurance plans may provide coverage for abortions outside those circumstances, and some state health plans may offer “abortion riders” to purchase for an additional monthly cost. Most people pay for the costs completely out of pocket, or with the help of Women Have Options—Ohio’s statewide abortion fund.

What it’s like seeking an abortion in Ohio:
This is one person’s story.

Kayla, 25, is a working, single parent of two children. She’s also had two abortions at Preterm, one of the largest abortion providers in the state. Several years before her first abortion, Kayla was incarcerated for a crime she says she didn’t commit. She was pregnant and requested an abortion, but the jail refused, so she continued the pregnancy.

She joined Preterm’s advocacy program called Patients to Advocates—a year-long paid fellowship which, according to Preterm, focuses on developing the leadership and engagement of patients who want to share their story. Through this program, Kayla has spoken at juvenile correctional facilities, where she’s provided young people support through sex education (which is often not adequately taught in school) and shared experiences. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

When did you know having an abortion was the right decision for you?

Kayla: I knew as soon as I found out I was pregnant. There may have been different circumstances with both experiences, but the underlying reasons were the same each time. Not being able to access an abortion when I was incarcerated was awful, because back then I knew that I didn’t want kids because I was in a crazy situation. So when I needed an abortion again, but this time as a parent, I knew immediately that I wasn’t ready for another [child]. I know the responsibilities that come with that. And now that my kids are older, I can’t imagine another running around here .

How long did it take you to schedule an appointment and visit the clinic?

Between the waiting period, the availability of the clinic, and my own schedule—I wasn’t able to just go in and have the abortion. I work and I have kids, but I knew what I needed to do and I wanted to do it immediately. It took me two weeks to get the abortion the first time, and the second time it took me three weeks.

How much did the abortion cost?

The first one, my insurance only covered something like $59, which left me with $300. At that time I didn’t have any money, and it was not easy to come up with that. I borrowed it all until I got paid, but when I got paid that put me all the way in the hole, trying to pay for bills, groceries, and gas. I was struggling to pay for the second abortion, too, and I was able to get some financial assistance [from local groups].

Were there protestors?

There’s always protestors at that clinic. Every single day, whatever day it is, they’re there. As a spiritual person, it was hard not to let it get to me. I almost told my mom, who was with me, that I didn’t want to do it. It almost changed my mind, it was that powerful. I had never been in an abortion clinic before, and I had seen my friend go through a medication abortion when we were teens. Back then, I didn’t even know you could get an abortion from a clinic—I thought it was an underground thing. So even though I now know that bleeding and cramping is normal…what I saw [from her medication abortion] completely terrified me. But I worked up the courage to go inside, and I told myself that my mom wouldn’t let me do something harmful.

What was the counseling like?

I spoke with a counselor who was unbiased, but she still had to tell me things that aren’t accurate, like [that it would cause] an increased risk of infertility. It wouldn’t have stopped me from doing it, though. To me, it’s like being told the risks of any other necessary medical procedure—even childbirth. If this is what I need to do, then it’s what I need to do. But I still know it’s safe.

What else do you remember about your experience?

I [inadvertently] called two crisis pregnancy centers before I found Preterm, and I could tell right away that they sounded off. I know tons of people who’ve visited them. But overall, it was really overwhelming, so for such positivity to come from a vulnerable situation—I can’t believe it. I needed this experience to be who I am today, and I want the things I’ve been through to help someone else .

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

So many things I’ve experienced have shaped what I’m about—like being incarcerated, having two abortions, and raising two kids as a young, single mother. I’m Black. I come from slavery. And I come from not having the choice to make the decisions we need to make. And a lot of people are still raised this way, so I’m just trying to break the cycle of what our ancestors taught us. I’ve went as far as jeopardizing my freedom—I was one of two Black women who were arrested at a peaceful protest [of abortion restrictions]. And I will always strive to do whatever I can to make sure that our abortion experience is not only easier, but more comfortable.

Source: https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/epgzxa/ohio-abortion-laws-what-its-like-to-get-an-abortion-in-ohio

People still use medically inaccurate and stigmatizing terms to talk about abortion. You can help change that.

For decades, conservative politicians and activists have dictated the rhetoric around abortion, and for that reason many of the words we use to talk about the procedure are medically inaccurate, emotionally charged, and suffused with stigma. And that includes even the most basic terms we use to describe the debate over abortion rights: The anti-abortion camp has long described itself as “pro-life” instead, monopolizing a powerful word that advocates say clouds their real intention—to ban abortion. The word “choice,” some say, is an imprecise one as well, creating the impression that one’s ability to get an abortion is simply a matter of choosing to do so, when in fact there are many systematic obstacles in the way that keep people from accessing the procedure.

Other terms are not just imprecise, but flat out incorrect. “Late-term abortion” isn’t a medical term, for example; and embryos don’t have “heartbeats” at six weeks, despite the dozens of bills named for this supposed phenomenon.

This language has not only influenced how we talk about abortion on an everyday basis, but has shaped legislation and policy that affects people’s access to the procedure, and, in some cases, prevented people from seeking the type of abortion care they would prefer to have. In a recent study on self-managed abortion, researchers found that some people chose to end their pregnancies on their own—in private—rather than get an abortion in a clinic “to avoid the stigma or shame of having an abortion.”

Most people don’t intend to harm people seeking abortions when they use medically incorrect terms; often it’s the case that they simply lack crucial knowledge about the procedure that would help them talk about it in a more sensitive way. (A new Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that nearly 70 percent of Americans don’t know how far along in pregnancy most abortions occur.)

Reproductive health experts say that changing the way we talk about abortion can begin to change the realities of the people who need abortions.

“The language that we use in this conversation defines the terms of the debate and defines whether people can access care in a supportive and affirming environment,” said Elisabeth Smith, the chief counsel of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “When we use language that’s stigmatizing, we are simply dividing people and creating additional hurdles or barriers for [patients].”

Here’s how to begin undoing some of the stigma, according to providers, advocates, and people who have received abortion care themselves:

Women aren’t the only people who get abortions. “Pregnant people” or “people seeking abortions” are less stigmatizing terms.

Transgender and nonbinary people experience increased barriers to getting healthcare, and are more likely to face discrimination from providers when they can access it. And when it comes to abortion care, people can unwittingly exacerbate those barriers by implying that it’s only cisgender women who need the procedure.

“It’s not only women who can get pregnant, which means it’s not only women who seek access to care,” Smith said. “Leaving trans men or nonbinary people out of the conversation means that when they try to access care it’s that much more stigmatizing and that much more difficult to access.”

Instead of “heartbeat bill,” use “six-week ban” or simply “abortion ban.”

What might otherwise be called a “six-week” abortion ban has instead become widely known as “heartbeat” legislation, thanks to conservative lawmakers who have used the false claim that six-week embryos have “heartbeats” in order to ban abortion before many people even know they’re pregnant. (Even after a functioning heart does form, a fetus isn’t considered viable until around 24 weeks.)

“There’s no heart [at that stage], there’s only a collection of cardiac cells that pulse,” Smith explained. That pulse—which anti-abortion activists insist is the sound of a “heartbeat”—isn’t actually audible, Smith continued: “The sonogram machine is what makes the pulse,” she said.

Instead of “late-term abortion,” use “abortion later in pregnancy” or “later abortion.”

Over the last year, President Donald Trump and other anti-choice politicians have leaned heavily on the term “late-term abortion,” using it to bolster the false claim that providers perform abortions just before patients’ due dates. “Democrats are … pushing extreme late-term abortion,” Trump said at a 2019 rally, after telling his supporters that fetuses can be “ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.”

Not only is this a misleading portrayal of the procedure, and a misrepresentation of the stage at which the overwhelming majority of abortions occur—88 percent are in the first trimester—but the term itself is non-medical and inaccurate, according to experts.

“The term ‘late-term abortion’ was largely created by anti-choice individuals and groups as a way to create more emotion around the process of abortion and make people feel empathy for the fetus,” Anuj Khattar, an abortion provider based in Washington and a fellow at Physicians for Reproductive Health, told VICE last year. “It’s not a medical term used by the medical community.”

This inflammatory language can mean that people who need later abortions (usually because of undetected fetal abnormalities or risks to their life) may find themselves experiencing stigma in already difficult circumstances.

“I kept telling my husband, ‘Please don’t think I’m a horrible person,’” said Dana Weinstein, a woman in Washington, D.C., who needed an abortion after she learned at 29 weeks that her fetus was missing large parts of its brain. “Of course he didn’t—but it was so frustrating that I had this stigma in my face when I was in this devastating situation.”

Avoid claiming that a state has “banned abortion”—and don’t share news stories that say so.

In the first six months of 2019, seven states passed some version of an abortion ban: Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ohio passed legislation banning abortion at six weeks, while Missouri banned the procedure at eight weeks, and Alabama passed a near-total ban on abortion. All of these laws were—and are—unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade which says states can’t restrict abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb. None went into effect right away. Yet at the time, some news outlets ran headlines like “Abortions after six weeks will be illegal under Georgia law,” or failed to mention the inevitable legal challenges the laws would face until readers got several paragraphs in.

Abortion providers have said that circulating this misinformation harms their patients by confusing them about the care they can legally access.

“People are saying, ‘I don’t know if I can make an appointment,’” Calla Hales, the director of a clinic network that oversees two locations in Georgia, told VICE last year amid the spate of bans. “We’re explaining to them, ‘No, abortion isn’t illegal. This ban doesn’t go into effect until 2020, and honestly, it may never get there.’”

Advocates say there’s a way to emphasize the severity of abortion bans, without circulating information that can harm patients: Instead, people who want to share news about new anti-abortion legislation can use words like “could” and “would” instead of “will,” to emphasize that the law is not yet in effect, and stress the law’s unconstitutionality.

Instead of “chemical abortion,” use “medication abortion” or “abortion with pills.”

Medication abortion is an early-abortion procedure that involves taking the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, which have been proven to be overwhelmingly safe and effective for ending a first-trimester pregnancy. When patients can access medication abortion in a clinic, they receive the medication from a licensed provider, and take the first drug in person and the second drug at home to pass the pregnancy. The Food and Drug Administration continues to require patients to receive the medication in the provider’s office as part of its longstanding restrictions on mifepristone, which much of the medical community has deemed unnecessary.

But in an effort to portray the procedure as risky or illicit, abortion foes sometimes refer to medication abortion as “chemical abortion” instead.

“It’s a very deliberate choice on their part: People think of chemicals as causing harm, or something caustic,” said Elisa Wells, the cofounder of Plan C, a site that rates online abortion-pill sellers for those who can’t access medication abortion in a clinic.

“Medication is something approved and deemed to be safe,” she said.

Use “self-managed” to describe abortions people do themselves—never “back-alley” abortion.

Self-managed abortion in 2020 doesn’t involve a coat hanger or receiving care from an unlicensed provider. It’s the same method as medication abortion, except instead of getting the medications in a clinic, patients usually buy the pills online. And research has shown that the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol remain safe and effective even when administered without medical supervision.

Some people choose self-managed abortion because they don’t have access to in-clinic care, while others prefer it because of the privacy, comfort, and convenience it can offer. Either way, advocates say it shouldn’t be characterized as dangerous or rudimentary so as to avoid stigmatizing the people who choose to self-manage.

“When people use that term ‘back-alley’ it evokes a time when doing your own abortion could be very dangerous,” Wells said.

“That’s not at all the case now with self-managed abortion,” she continued. “We want to get away from the image of the coat hanger and help people associate self-managed abortion with pills and safety.”

Avoid the term “surgical” when referring to abortion—say “in-clinic” or “procedural” abortion.

Last week, New York City-based abortion provider Zoey Thill was explaining an early abortion procedure to a patient when she was faced with a revealing question: “What do you cut with?” Thill had shown the patient the tools she would use, but the patient was confused why there were no sharp instruments Thill could use to make an incision.

As Thill went on to explain, performing an abortion doesn’t involve any incisions or “cutting” of any kind. But she understands why some patients might think so: What Thill refers to as a “procedural abortion” is what most people likely consider a “surgical” abortion. And the term “surgical” can give both patients and lawmakers a misleading idea about what an abortion entails, Thill said: In reality, most abortion procedures involve dilating the cervix, inserting a thin tube into the uterus, and then connecting it to a plastic, syringe-like device known as a vacuum aspirator to extract the pregnancy.

“It’s a very simple in-office procedure that sometimes can last just two or three minutes,” she told VICE. But the term “surgical” can “elevate the perception of the severity of the procedure, which could make patients feel more anxious about it.”

Referring to abortion as surgery can also lend credence to regulations on providers and clinics, like the medically unnecessary and unconstitutional Louisiana law the Supreme Court will take up in March, requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges. “Rhetoric that associates abortion with danger can serve as their justification,” Thill said.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akwv8b/how-to-talk-about-abortion

The financial cards are stacked against women who want but are denied an abortion, as they and their children are more likely to spend years living in poverty than those able to end their pregnancies, a new study suggests. Those compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are far more likely to experience eviction, bankruptcy and be mired in debt, according to the findings released Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In looking at a decade of credit data for women who sought abortions at 30 health providers in 21 states, the latest findings build upon a study released last year that found denied abortions quadrupled the odds of a new mother and her child living in poverty. The new analysis compared changes over time in credit report outcomes for three years before and up to five years after the intended abortion.

“We find that being denied an abortion has large and persistent effects on financial distress that are sustained for five years following the intended abortion,” wrote the report’s authors, Sarah Miller of the University of Michigan, Laura Wheery of the University of California at Los Angeles and Diana Foster of of the University of California at San Francisco. “Unpaid debts that are more than 30 days past due more than double in size, and the number of public records, which include negative events such as evictions and bankruptcies, increases substantially.”

An inability to afford raising a child was the biggest reason given by women seeking abortions, and for those denied the procedure, public-assistance programs largely failed to compensate for the costs of having a baby and keeping the family out of poverty, the researchers noted.

Together, the studies found that carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term increased by 78% the amount of debt 30 days or more past due and increased negative public records like evictions and bankruptcies by 81%. Women refused abortions were nearly four times as likely to live below the federal poverty line four years later as those who had abortions, according to the research, and three-quarters reported not being able to cover basic expenses, such as housing, transportation and food, five years later. Almost two-third, or 63%, already had one child.

The economic picture illustrated in the research is particularly pertinent in that the decision to end a pregnancy is increasingly being challenged in the U.S., with at least nine states passing abortion bans in the last year, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. Should the U.S. Supreme Court limit or overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion rights would be protected in less than half of U.S. states and in none of its territories, the center noted.

A federal appeals court in December upheld a lower court’s decision striking down Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The judge cited Supreme Court decisions dating back nearly five decades to the Roe v. Wade decision re-affirming a woman’s right to end a pregnancy before viability, or when the fetus can survive for a sustained time outside the womb.

The Supreme Court in March is hearing its first challenge to Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling in January 1973 that legalized abortion in the U.S., since Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the high court in October 2018.

“Given that the current trend has been for state laws to lower gestational limits, with recent efforts to ban abortions as early as six weeks or even through the entire pregnancy, it seems likely that the number of women being denied a wanted abortion in the U.S. will only continue to grow over time,” the study’s authors concluded.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-denied-abortions-in-financial-distress-years-later-study-finds/?fbclid=IwAR2YnP-hc1nq8lgOGf4MX3171wkQXOJB3ahDiNzsEmwzP1711S38J14hpms

Texas law requires minors to notify or get consent from a parent or guardian before getting an abortion. If they don’t want to, young women can ask a judge for permission.

The percentage of minors unable to get a judge’s approval for an abortion in Texas has fluctuated in the past two decades, according to a study published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health.

Texas is one of 37 states that have laws requiring minors to notify or obtain consent from a parent or guardian before they get an abortion. Supporters of these laws argue they ensure parents stay involved in their children’s medical care.

If a young woman would prefer not to, she can ask a judge for permission, a process called a judicial bypass. In most judicial bypass cases, the young women fear for their safety or don’t have a parent or guardian.

Amanda Jean Stevenson, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Colorado – Boulder, said this is the first study to even acknowledge judicial bypass denials happen. She said this is an important issue that should be looked at.

“We know from really high-quality evidence that when people are denied wanted abortions there are long-term negative, socioeconomic, health and other consequences for them and their lives,” she said.

Researchers found that the rate of judges denying young women judicial bypasses in the state changed a lot between 2001 and 2018. According to the study, the biggest spike in denials happened after the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3994 in 2016. The law gave judges more time to rule on these requests, and if a deadline was not met it was automatically rejected.

Opponents said this made it harder to get a judicial bypass.

“In 2016, the first year under HB3994, the percentage denied rose more than threefold,” researchers wrote.

But in the two years that followed, the study found, the percentage of denials fell from about 13% overall to about 5%.

Stevenson said such a big change occurring within just a few years is concerning.

“That pattern indicates that the increase in denials after the law changes may not be due to the changing law,” she said. It could have something to do with politics or “some other process that’s leading judges to be more likely to deny the cases.”

Researchers said these figures raise concerns, because “the judicial bypass process is intended to insulate young people from anyone’s veto of their abortion decision.”

Source: https://www.tpr.org/post/judges-texas-are-inconsistent-about-allowing-minors-get-abortions-without-parental-consent?fbclid=IwAR2ohYmt0X3VkemgPFJqYyMlDF3AzPKEEhzIlscHILBSLtvyMaPGxM0SYaI

A new study says 99% of women don’t regret their abortions. So why is the procedure still stigmatized?

Abortion-rights protesters picket outside the Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral in New York. Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket/Getty Images

I wear a button on my winter jacket that reads “Abortion is normal.” It’s in big black letters set against a white background — pretty hard to miss. I got it last year at an event put on by Shout Your Abortion, a movement created to reduce stigma around the procedure and get people talking more openly about their abortion experiences.

Since I’ve started wearing the button, I’ve had more than a dozen women come up to me to talk about their abortions or tell me how much they love the sentiment. A woman who walked by me while I was on vacation gave me a thumbs up; the cashier at the bodega on my block told me in a hushed voice that she wished more people would talk about their abortions. “Why would they want us to have babies we don’t want?” she wondered aloud.

The truth is that abortion is an incredibly common experience—1 in 4 American women will have one. While media coverage might give the impression that the country is evenly split on abortion, the truth is that the percent of Americans who want the procedure to remain legal is at a record high. New research released this week provides even more evidence that abortion is safe and valued: The study shows that women who do have abortions overwhelmingly don’t regret their decision.

The study, published in Social Science & Medicine, shows that over a five-year period, 95% of women reported that they felt their abortion was the right decision, an already-whopping number that increased to 99% by the end of the five years.

In short, nearly all women who end their pregnancies look back and are glad they did it. The few negative emotions women did have were directly connected to the stigma around abortion in their communities. They felt bad if the people around them said that they should.

That said, we don’t often talk about abortion as a decision that can have resoundingly positive ripple effects even though it undoubtedly does. Because of abortion, women are able to continue on with school, take better care of the children they already have, get out of abusive relationships, and live the lives they want to have.

We don’t often talk about abortion as a decision that can have resoundingly positive ripple effects even though it undoubtedly does.

When I had an abortion in my late twenties, for example, I was able to finish my first book and get out of a relationship that wasn’t working. Three months later, I met the man I’d marry: We’ve been together 13 years and have a nine-year-old daughter. The life I have right now, the life that I love, exists in large part because I had an abortion.

In fact, when women don’t have access to an abortion they want, it can set their life off-track in severe and debilitating ways. In 2015, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, found that women who were denied the ability to have abortions suffered negatively across different areas of their life. Women who couldn’t get the abortions they wanted were four times more likely to live below the federal poverty line, three times more likely to be unemployed, and more likely to lack money for basic things like food and housing. They were also more likely to stay in contact with abusive partners.

Still, unpopular anti-abortion legislation is on the rise, as is clinic violence. The current president of the United States even lies regularly about women have “post-birth” abortions, falsely claiming that doctors execute newborn babies. That kind of overblown and false claim is the reality of life in a country where the rights of a fetus often trump the rights of a woman thanks to the power and passion of people who represent a minority that’s opposed to all legal abortions.

Given that so many men in elected office continue to limit reproductive rights, it may be hard to imagine a future where abortion is normalized in America. But if we want to stop the rollbacks of abortion rights and be proactive about women’s rights more broadly, decreasing stigma has to be a priority.

For many activists, it already is. Organizations like Shout Your Abortion and the Abortion Access Front as well as artists and abortion storytellers are changing the way that we talk about reproductive justice — moving from a defensive crouch to unapologetic candidness. It’s exactly what we need.

The other piece that will help, though, is if we can start making abortions easier to get. In the same way that emergency contraception is now available over the counter, so should birth control pills and medication abortion, aka abortion pills. (Experts have shown abortion pills to be safe and effective for women to take on their own.)

None of this will be easy, but it’s way past time. How many studies do we need showing that abortion is safe and necessary for women’s well-being? How many women need to share their most intimate stories before the men who are mostly in charge start to see them as fully human? Given that so many Americans already see and experience abortion as a normal part of life — one they are happy to have access to and have almost zero regrets over — the culture and politics need to catch up.

Abortion is normal, and it always has been. Let’s stop pretending otherwise.

Source: https://gen.medium.com/abortion-is-normal-and-its-time-to-treat-it-that-way-9bc6a6caf608

Abortion access didn’t make the cut during Tuesday’s debate in Iowa among presidential candidates who have pledged to take radical steps to fight back against Republican attacks on reproductive health care.

The systematic rollback of reproductive rights on the state and federal level wasn’t mentioned during Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate in Iowa.
ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

Advocates Slam ‘Indefensible’ Omission of Abortion Rights at Iowa Debate

The systematic rollback of reproductive rights on the state and federal level wasn’t mentioned during Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, even as 8 in 10 likely Iowa caucusgoers call abortion rights “a must-have regardless of how they plan to participate,” according to CNN polling.

The 2020 presidential election comes a decade after Republicans swept to power in state legislatures, swiftly passing a raft of laws undercutting access to abortion care. Last year, Republican-held legislatures across the South and Midwest passed near-total abortion bans designed to challenge the precedent set in Roe v. Wade. Legislators in 32 states enacted 394 anti-choice laws from 2011 to 2017, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has stocked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with anti-choice activists who have dedicated their careers to ending legal abortion.

Still, abortion access didn’t make the cut during Tuesday’s debate among candidates who have pledged to take radical steps to fight back against Republican attacks on reproductive health care.

Jenny Lawson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, said it was “indefensible” that abortion rights didn’t come up once during two hours of debate in a state that has seen Republicans pass a near-total ban on abortion.

“Iowans know better than anyone what it looks like for politicians to push their extreme agenda on people and their doctors,” she said in a statement, adding that Iowa lawmakers “have failed” their constituents. “At this critical juncture, the stakes for reproductive rights could not be higher. … We—and voters all across the country—demand better.”

The Democratic presidential debate in December only passingly addressed reproductive health care, drawing criticism from advocates. Candidates had a lengthy exchange about abortion access during the debate in June, answering questions with anti-choice framing and defending their reproductive health platforms.

Destiny Lopez, co-director of the All* Above All Action Fund, a reproductive rights organization, said as the Democratic presidential field narrows, “it’s critical that voters know where candidates stand on issues of reproductive justice, which goes far beyond a promise to protect Roe v. Wade.”

“The stakes of this presidential election could not be higher for women of color,” Lopez told Rewire.News. “It’s not just about abortion—our lives, our bodies, our families, and our communities are literally on the line. It’s deeply disappointing that even as we face this stark reality, debate moderators failed to bring up any issues of reproductive health, rights, or justice at all.”

“Now more than ever, we need to hear from candidates on how they plan to overturn the Hyde Amendment and ensure fair wages, decent working conditions, and access to reproductive health care, including abortion, so that families can be healthy and live with dignity,” Lopez continued.

Networks that host presidential debates and moderators who ask the questions should treat abortion access as a top-line issue, said Mallory Schwarz, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri, which last year almost became the first state post-Roe without a standalone abortion provider.

“Amidst ongoing attacks on access to abortion from Republican lawmakers across Missouri, Georgia, and Ohio, Democratic presidential candidates must use every opportunity to speak directly and boldly on their plans to protect the right to choose,” Schwarz said in a statement to Rewire.News.

“The reality is: Abortion is not a niche issue, but a top priority for voters in 2020. … Voters deserve to hear each candidate’s response on how they will defend this fundamental freedom, including the steps they’ll take to stop coordinated attacks on clinics that provide abortion, repeal the Hyde Amendment, and expand abortion access, particularly for those individuals disproportionately impacted by state restrictions, including communities of color.”

What Else We’re Reading 

The New York Times reported on the potential impact of impeachment hearings in the U.S. Senate that will force three Democratic candidates—Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)—off the campaign trail just weeks ahead of the February 3 Iowa caucuses. Recent FiveThirtyEight polling shows Sanders in second place in Iowa, Warren in fourth, and Klobuchar a distant fifth place.

Forty-two percent of Black voters between the ages of 18 and 34 are backing Sanders in the 2020 primary election, according to the Washington Post, making him the most popular candidate in that demographic. Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, leads among Black voters between 35 and 49 years old and maintains a commanding lead among older Black voters.

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, the eighth richest person on Earth, will ask Silicon Valley billionaires for their support in the 2020 election, Recode reported. Bloomberg has drawn support from tech billionaire and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2020/01/17/at-iowa-debate-reproductive-rights-nowhere-to-be-found-campaign-week-in-review/

The anti-choice movement actively uses social media platforms to communicate and organize with its members. Sites such as Twitter and Facebook provide opportunities for movement leaders to test the effectiveness of anti-choice narratives before promoting their claims to a wide audience. As part of the NARAL research department, we monitor the public statements of major anti-choice organizations and individuals and track how these narratives evolve over time. Here are some of the most notable anti-choice narrative trends from this past quarter:

Tactic #1: Co-Opting Feminism

After a volatile summer of extreme anti-choice legislation sparked scrutiny and public outrage, anti-choice leaders increasingly attempted to co-opt feminist language to deflect further criticism. They frequently claimed (counterintuitively) that restricting reproductive freedom empowers women, that notable feminists from history were anti-choice (though their most common arguments have been repeatedly debunked), and that abortion access actually perpetuates gender inequality and oppression. Even the official theme of March for Life 2020, “Life Empowers: Pro-Life is Pro-Woman,” announced in October, followed this narrative.

This trend is a reversion to an old anti-choice messaging tactic that claims it’s possible to be “pro-woman” while working against women’s actual freedoms. It emphasizes a narrow definition of femininity, venerating women who occupy traditional gender roles while attacking or erasing women who make different decisions. It also relies heavily on disinformation.

Tactic #2: Working the Refs at Social Media Companies

Much like the broader conservative movement, anti-choice activists have found that aggressive and unrelenting accusations of liberal bias in media and on social media can push outlets to be overly deferential to their conservative critics — and even give them preferential treatment. In late 2019, anti-choice activists continued their long-term effort to work the refs at social media companies by frequently claiming that companies like Twitter and Facebook intentionally censor anti-choice content and promote pro-choice content. Their accusations typically revolved around instances where examples of anti-choice misinformation had been accurately fact-checked, or anti-choice content had been removed for other rule violations.

For example, this September, Live Action and SBA List condemned Facebook for removing a video of Lila Rose stating “abortion is never medically necessary,” after the claim was determined to be false by a third-party fact-checker. (NOTE: This claim constitutes medical disinformation, as determined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.)They also activated conservative U.S. Senators to promote their claims of “censorship,” who addressed a critical open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, to promote their claims of “censorship.”.

SBA List remains of the most vocal advocates for preferential treatment of conservatives online. Most recently, they called for Twitter to censor Planned Parenthood, NARAL, EMILY’s List, and other prominent pro-choice groups.

Tactic #3: Misleading the Public and Moving the Goal Posts

In early 2019, in the wake of Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and in expectation of a future ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, anti-choice activists ramped up their attacks on reproductive freedoms, eventually embracing fact-free claims that pro-choice advocates support “infanticide” or murder babies after birth. Though murder was already unquestionably illegal, they spent much of the year promoting legislation proposed by Senator Ben Sasse that would interfere with patient care and could criminalize doctors while doing nothing to change laws against murder. Using New York State’s Reproductive Freedom Act⁠ — which ensures access to needed care throughout pregnancy when a woman’s health or life is endangered, or their pregnancy is not viable⁠ — anti-choice politicians and organizations launched a full-scale disinformation campaign.

On September 10th, House Republicans held an unofficial hearing to again elevate a version of Sasse’s proposal. Anti-choice leaders promoted the stunt with the #EndInfanticide hashtag, which briefly trended on Twitter, furthering the false narrative. This is the same false narrative Trump pushed in his 2019 State of the Union address.

Other instances of this ongoing disinformation campaign include claims that infanticide is not already illegal and needs to be banned, that Democrats are advocating for abortion “up until” and “even after birth,” and the persistent canard that the Democratic presidential candidates all support infanticide. These attempts to peddle disinformation also intentionally conflated abortion later in pregnancy with post-birth palliative care.

As the 2020 legislative session kicks off, we continue to see this dangerous disinformation spread through state bills being introduced in several states. However, we will continue to monitor whether anti-choice organizations will double-down or shy away from this false narrative. Interestingly, Live Action has increasingly distanced themselves from the language of “infanticide.” Since September 2019, neither Live Action nor Lila Rose have tweeted the phrase.

Tactic #4: A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing — Posing As A Civil Rights Movement

Beginning in October, several anti-choice organizations began working to subvert widespread public support for reproductive freedom by pushing claims that abortion, rather than anti-choice laws, is discriminatory. In particular, they framed abortion as “lethal discrimination.” This narrative echoes their past arguments that abortion is “discrimination in the womb.”

By the fall of 2019, major anti-choice organizations including Live Action and Susan B. Anthony List appears to have adopted the language of “lethal discrimination” in their campaign against reproductive freedom.

Tactic #5: I Know I Am, But What Are You?

Many of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have stated their strong support of reproductive freedom for all Americans. Though 7 in 10 Americans support reproductive freedom, the anti-choice movement has chosen to disingenuously cast Democrats as extremists. And despite pro-choice candidates’ overwhelming success in the 2018 and 2019 elections, anti-choice activists continue to insist that a commitment to reproductive freedom from all the leading Democratic presidential candidates will cost them the general election.

In a primary rife with questions of “electability,” conservative outlets aim to portray reproductive freedom as a losing issue. Despite copious polling showing the popularity of policies to safeguard reproductive rights, anti-choice activists would like the public to believe that these stances are “out of touch” with most Americans’ views and will alienate a crucial voting block.

What’s Next?

Monitoring the evolution of anti-choice narratives on social media provides invaluable insight for the fight for reproductive freedom. Historically, the narratives formally adopted by influential anti-choice organizations and individuals begin on sites like Twitter and Facebook and filter down to the rest of their movement. The reproductive freedom movement’s capacity to combat anti-choice propaganda requires being prepared for the types of arguments that may come our way. As we approach a crucial election year, the importance of this research cannot be understated.

As news generation and consumption migrates from traditional outlets to tech platforms, the traditional gatekeepers who once flagged disinformation are noticeably absent. In 2020, it’s critical that we be even more vigilant in pushing back on emerging disinformation narratives that aim to attack our freedoms.

Source: https://medium.com/@NARAL/the-anti-choice-propaganda-playbook-five-tactics-to-look-out-for-in-2020-4a30b5e016aa