Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

STATEHOUSE NEWS BUREAU

A new bill would ban most private insurance coverage for abortions. But opponents say it would also ban effective methods of birth control.

One fifth of the representatives in the House have signed on to a bill sponsored by Republican John Becker that would prohibit most insurance companies from offering coverage for abortion services.

“The intent is to save lives and reduce the cost of employers and employees health care insurance,” Becker says.

The bill would ban nontherapeutic abortions that include “drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

And Becker says the bill also speaks to coverage of ectopic or tubal pregnancies where the fertilized egg attaches outside of the womb.

“Part of that treatment would be removing that embryo from the fallopian tube and reinserting it in the uterus so that is defined as not an abortion under this bill,” Becker explains.

“That doesn’t exist in the realm of treatment for ectopic pregnancy. You can’t just re-implant. It’s not a medical thing,” says Jaime Miracle, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

She says, under this bill, women would have to wait until their very lives were in danger to get an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

“This bill will have grave impacts on Ohio’s infant and maternal mortality rate,” Miracle says.

And she says that’s not all. She says it will ban insurance from covering popular methods of birth control.

“Birth control pills, IUD’s and other methods of birth control like that – the bill states that any birth control that could act to stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is considered an abortion under this bill,” Miracle says.

Becker insists his bill does not target birth control.

“When you get into the contraception and abortifacients, that’s clearly not my area of expertise but I suppose, if it were true that what we typically known as the pill would be classified as an abortifacient, then I would imagine the drug manufacturers would reformulate it so it’s no longer an abortifacient and is strictly a contraceptive,” Becker says.

This bill just had its first hearing in committee. If it goes further, supporters, opponents and medical professionals will testify for or against it.

Less than a month ago, Ohio lawmakers passed and Gov. Mike DeWine signed a law that bans abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy – at the point a fetal heartbeat can be detected. If this legislation goes through as written, it would go even further.

Source: https://www.statenews.org/post/ohio-legislature-considering-abortion-bill-more-restrictive-heartbeat-bill?fbclid=IwAR3dLFpIPtCDKJrhE6qYJx06UX-WyKz3MBYxSZm6-W2uh9Hp2mp6z5TAqB4

Anti-abortion activists participate in the March for Life, an annual event to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 18.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.

This radical revision of Georgia law is quite deliberate: The bill confirms that fetuses “shall be included in population based determinations” from now on, because they are legally humans, and residents of the state. But it is not clear whether the bill’s drafters contemplated the more dramatic consequences of granting legal personhood to fetuses. For instance, as Georgia appellate attorney Andrew Fleischman has pointed out, the moment this bill takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020, the state will be illegally holding thousands of citizens in jail without bond. That’s because, under HB 481, pregnant inmates’ fetuses have independent rights—including the right to due process. Can a juvenile attorney represent an inmate’s fetus and demand its release? If not, why? It is an egregious due process violation to punish one human for the crimes of another. If an inmate’s fetus is a human, how can Georgia lawfully detain it for a crime it did not commit?

But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.

HB 481 would also have consequences for women who get abortions from doctors or miscarry. A woman who seeks out an illegal abortion from a health care provider would be a party to murder, subject to life in prison. And a woman who miscarries because of her own conduct—say, using drugs while pregnant—would be liable for second-degree murder, punishable by 10 to 30 years’ imprisonment. Prosecutors may interrogate women who miscarry to determine whether they can be held responsible; if they find evidence of culpability, they may charge, detain, and try these women for the death of their fetuses.

Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

It is entirely possible that Georgia prosecutors armed with this new statute will bring charges against women who terminate their pregnancies illegally. In 2015, a Georgia prosecutor chargedKenlissia Jones with murder after she self-terminated; he only dropped the charges after concluding that “criminal prosecution of a pregnant woman for her own actions against her unborn child does not seem permitted.” Starting in 2020, however, Georgia law will permit precisely this kind of prosecution. There is no reason to doubt that history will repeat itself, and more prosecutors will charge women who undergo abortions with murder.

For now, Supreme Court precedent protecting women’s reproductive rights should bar such prosecutions—and indeed, require the invalidation of HB 481. But the court’s conservative majority may be on the verge of dismantling Roe v. Wade. If that happens, Georgia and otherconservative states will be free to outlaw abortion, and to imprison women who self-terminate. HB 481 is further proof that once Roe is gone, it won’t just be abortion providers who risk legal jeopardy: Women will be punished, too.

Source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/hb-481-georgia-law-criminalizes-abortion-subjects-women-to-life-in-prison.html?fbclid=IwAR3NOAr85-xGaKXsO2r6r2440Nc8egWzzBCECvkiJ3r1rhSAPIS3m0aa-YI

Pro-choice advocates have called on North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) to investigate anti-choice clinics and stop public funding for groups that operate the facilities.

North Carolina Republicans lost their veto-proof supermajority in last year’s midterm elections, meaning Gov. Roy Cooper (D) could now have more sway in budget negotiations.
Joseph Sohm

North Carolina lawmakers have drafted a state budget for 2019-21 that awards more than $1.2 million per fiscal year to an organization that operates anti-choice pregnancy centers, four times the funding the group received in the previous budget.

Pro-choice advocates, led by the group Reproaction, have lobbied top North Carolina officials to halt public funding for anti-choice clinics, including those run by the Human Coalition, which misleadingly advertises its clinics as offering a full range of reproductive health-care options. In a letter to North Carolina officials sent before the legislature’s budget was released this week, the pro-choice organizations said that Human Coalition has “been known to change the name of the fake clinics they operate to evade detection [by] the women they aim to trick out of procuring abortions.”

The state’s proposed 2019-21 budget has yet to pass either chamber of the GOP-held legislature, though it’s widely expected to clear the house on Friday. North Carolina Republicans lost their veto-proof supermajority in last year’s midterm elections, meaning Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper now has more sway in budget negotiations.

Reproaction has called on Cooper and his administration’s health department officials—such as Health and Human Services Secretary Mandy Cohen—to investigate the Human Coalition and stop state funds from pouring into organizations that operate anti-choice pregnancy centers.

“Until North Carolina taxpayers know what Human Coalition is doing with state money, there should be no funding increases. Certainly not to the tune of millions of dollars that should be allocated to real, comprehensive reproductive health care,” Shireen Rose Shakouri, senior campaign lead for Reproaction, told Rewire.News.

“The legislature directed these funds [to] go specifically to this group,” Ford Porter, a spokesperson for Cooper, said in an email to Rewire.News. “Neither the governor nor his administration requested or supported this funding.”

But Rose Shakouri said Cooper “is perfectly within his ability to direct his administrators at North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services to investigate and terminate their contract with the anti-abortion fake clinic chain Human Coalition.” In his response to Rewire.News, the governor’s spokesperson did not say whether Cooper has the ability to stop the funding.

The proposed state budget also includes funding for anti-choice groups like Mountain Area Pregnancy Services and Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (CPCF). The Mountain Area Pregnancy Services website includes misinformation about so-called abortion reversal—a medical procedure pushed by abortion rights foes and unrecognized by legitimate medical organizations—and the supposed risks of abortion care, which is overwhelmingly safe.

Rewire.News reported in 2018 that for years the North Carolina legislature has directed part of its federal Maternal and Child Health block grant to CPCF. The state budget mandates that public “funds shall be used for nonreligious, nonsectarian purposes,” but the Rewire.News investigation showed that clinics subcontracted by CPCF have used federal funding to purchase religious materials “with approval from state regulators.”

Many states with Republican-majority legislatures funnel taxpayer funds into pregnancy clinics operated by anti-choice activists who often lie to pregnant people about their health-care options and don’t offer a full range of reproductive health-care options, like contraception and abortion care.

Public funding of clinics run by anti-choice activists often comes at the expense of families with low incomes: nine of 14 states that distribute taxpayer money to these clinics do so with federal dollars from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, according to a 2018 Rewire.News analysis. North Carolina is one of those nine. In 2018, more than $13.4 million in federal funding earmarked for families with low incomes was used for programs that direct money to anti-choice pregnancy centers. Many anti-choice clinics receiving taxpayer dollars, according to the 2018 analysis, operate with almost no transparency or government oversight.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2019/05/03/north-carolina-legislature-seeks-to-quadruple-taxpayer-funding-for-anti-choice-clinic-group/

Some GPs providing abortions services are being “intimidated” outside their practice “every single day.”

Since the Eighth Amendment was repealed and legislation came into force, 317 GPs have been contracted to provide termination of pregnancy (ToP) services in Ireland, as of January 2.

“Some of our colleagues, of all opinions, have been under a lot of pressure and it’s been difficult, but particularly colleagues who have decided to conscientiously support this service. Some of them have been under immense pressure locally,” said Dr Mark Murphy, at the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP)’s annual conference this evening.

He was speaking in support of a motion that called for the provision of safe access zones for people accessing abortion services at their GP practices.

Following the unanimous passing of the motion, the ICGP will now call on the Minister for Health Simon Harris, to provide safe access zones for all patients attending their GP.

Of 13 motions on the ICGP’s agenda, three of them related to the reality of general practice following the repeal of the Eighth Amendment.

One of those motions asked that the role and views of conscientious objectors to the termination of pregnancy be a respected part of the core GP training curriculum.

While not speaking on the motion, the ICGP’s honorary secretary Dr Eamonn Shanahan, stated emphatically that all views “will be respected.”

“There is a need for every trainee to be aware of the law of the land, but apart from that there is no obligation on anybody to have to provide a service they are uncomfortable with,” Dr Shanahan said.

A further motion related to free contraception, which members of the ICGP extended to include the provision of free vasectomies, was also passed. The ICGP will now lobby Minister Harris on this motion.

The reason behind the motion was on the back of the repealing of the Eighth Amendment and the subsequent legalising of abortion in Ireland up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. The provision of free contraception and vasectomies would reduce the incidences of crisis pregnancies in the first place.

It was also decided by the college, that a report would be commissioned into the ICGP’s representation at the Citizens’ Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment.

“This report should also include recommendations on how any identified pitfalls and negative outcomes can be avoided, should a similar situation arise in the future e.g. concerning any potential legislation for euthanasia or medically -assisted dying,” read the motion.

Source: https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/some-gps-intimidated-outside-practices-providing-abortion-services-every-single-day-922121.html?fbclid=IwAR0sP3dZPZaw0i8unIPYAotfMxSKb1YDk1fe6HAxx3noX3SthAC-WgVLVgA

Friday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in Northern California followed a similar decision by a federal judge in Washington state to bar the government from imposing the new restrictions there. (Getty Images)

A federal judge in San Francisco decided Friday to block the Trump administration from denying federal funds to family planning clinics in California that make abortion referrals.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen followed a similar decision by a federal judge in Washington state to bar the government from imposing the new restrictions there.

A judge in Oregon also has indicated he would rule similarly in a challenge brought in that state.

Chen said the new rule, which was to take effect next Friday, “commands medical professionals to provide incomplete and misleading information to women seeking to terminate their pregnancies.”

The funding at stake is delivered under a 1970 law, Title X of the Public Health Service Act.

It was intended to make family planning services available to the poor and those in isolated rural regions. The funds have never been allowed to be used to pay for or subsidize abortions.

In March, the Trump administration added more restrictions. It said clinics that make abortion referrals would no longer be entitled to the federal funds and recipients could not share office space with abortion providers.

The new rule also would require clinics to refer pregnant women to a healthcare provider for prenatal health services, even if the client wanted an abortion.

Critics said the restrictions were intended to steer women to faith-based family planning services.

California, which serves 1 million patients annually under the Title X program, and Essential Access Health Inc., a nonprofit group that administers the state’s Title X program, sued to block the rule in California.

In issuing a preliminary injunction, Chen said the restrictions would “compromise providers’ ability to deliver effective care and force them to obstruct and delay patients with pressing medical needs.”

“Abortion is a time-sensitive procedure,” Chen wrote. Medical risks and costs rise with delay, he said.

The new rule “erects barrier after barrier between patients trying to make an informed decision about whether to continue their pregnancies and their clinicians,” Chen said.

If the rule were to take effect, many providers would drop out of the program, and the amount and quality of family planning services in California would decline, he said.

Chen did not issue a nationwide injunction, saying the challengers were both based in California and had not cited sufficient evidence of harm in other states.

“Judge Chen’s ruling affirms that in 2019, denying women the medical information and services they want and need is a losing proposition,” said Julie Rabinovitz, president and chief executive of Essential Access Health.

The U.S. Department of Justice could not be reached for comment.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-injunction-title-x-california-20190426-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2sEOF70yoTD7u9tAfujxtQGeUID5kCzdW0RXryVf8ooUmFNMd_3WhJqPk

Friday’s decision means the Kansas State Constitution protects abortion rights more vigorously than the U.S. Constitution.

Kansas’ Republican-majority legislature was the first in the country to pass a D and E ban, based on legislation pushed by the National Right to Life Committee. Friday’s decision is the first the state supreme court has recognized abortion rights under the state constitution.
Nagel Photography / Shutterstock.com

After considering the issue for more than two years, the Kansas Supreme Court on Friday declared the Kansas State Constitution recognizes the right to an abortion independent of federal law. 

“Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides: ‘All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’” the opinion states. “We are now asked: Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, ‘Yes.’”

The decision came in the case of Hodes & Nauser MDs, PA, et al v. Derek Schmidt et al, a challenge to SB 95, a 2015 Kansas law that bans dilation and evacuation (D and E), the most common form of second-trimester abortion care.

Kansas’ Republican-majority legislature was the first in the country to pass a D and E ban, based on legislation pushed by the National Right to Life Committee. Friday’s decision is the first the state supreme court has recognized abortion rights under the state constitution.

In June 2015, advocates sued in state court to block SB 95, arguing the law unconstitutionally burdens abortion rights and should be blocked. Kansas Judge Larry Hendricks agreed, ruling the measure likely violated the Kansas Constitution as well.

The 199-page decision discusses at length the state constitutional source of abortion rights, grounding it in the state’s protection of “natural rights” and concluded those rights include personal autonomy and bodily integrity, of which the right to make decisions about parenting and procreation. 

“At the heart of a natural rights philosophy is the principle that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives, or, in other words, to exercise personal autonomy,” the decision states. “Few decisions impact our lives more than those about issues that affect one’s physical health, family formation, and family life.”

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a Friday statement that the court’s decision makes Kansas one of ten states “whose highest courts have affirmed at the state level what the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld for more than four decades: that every woman has a right to make her own decisions about her health and family free from political interference.”

“As this decision makes clear, attempts to undermine that fundamental right by banning safe and accepted methods of abortion cannot stand,” Northrup said.

The decision protects abortion rights in a broader sense than federal law by going beyond the undue burden standard and ruling strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional threshold for judging state actions, applies in these situations instead. “Simply put, the undue burden standard—both as set out in Hellerstedt, and in the concurring opinion, lacks the rigor demanded by the Kansas Constitution for protecting the right of personal autonomy at issue in this case,” the opinion states.

“At issue here is the inalienable natural right of personal autonomy, which is the heart of human dignity. It encompasses our ability to control our own bodies, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination,” the opinion continues. “Imposing a lower standard than strict scrutiny, especially mere reasonableness, or the dissent’s ‘rational basis with bite’—when the factual circumstances implicate these rights because a woman decides to end her pregnancy—risks allowing the State to then intrude into all decisions about childbearing, our families, and our medical decision-making.”

“It cheapens the rights at stake.”

Justice Caleb Stegall issued a dissenting opinion, deriding the majority opinion as one that “fundamentally alters the structure of our government to magnify the power of the state—all while using that power to arbitrarily grant a regulatory reprieve to the judicially privileged act of abortion.”

Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement that the Kanas Supreme Court ruling should serve as a “strong message” to anti-choice legislators backing unconstitutional restrictions on abortion rights.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling reaffirms what we in medicine and public health know to be true—abortion is a safe, standard medical procedure that one in four women will have her in lifetime, and is part of the full spectrum of reproductive health care,” Wen said.

Friday’s decision means advocates have a new tool in challenging abortion restrictions in the state. It also means SB 95 will remain blocked while the case returns to the trial court, where the challenge to the merits of SB 95 will continue.

Doctors argue that the bans, known as ‘fetal heartbeat’ bills, are medically inaccurate and use misleading language

Abortion rights activists protest outside the US supreme court in January 2019. Photograph: José Luis Magaña/AP

High-profile gynecologists are criticizing the framing of six-week abortion bans, known as “fetal heartbeat” bills, as medically inaccurate.

The bans, now moving through nearly a dozen state legislatures, propose the strictest limitations on the right to abortion as established by the US supreme court case Roe v Wade in 1973.

“These bills present the idea that there’s something that looks like what you or a person on the street would call a baby – a thing that’s almost ready to go for a walk,” said Dr Jen Gunter, a gynecologist in Canada and the US who runs an influential blog. “In reality, you’re talking about something that’s millimeters in size and doesn’t look anything like that.”

That early in a pregnancy, Gunter said, an embryo does not have a heart – at least, not what we understand a human heart to be, with pumping tubes and ventricles. At six weeks, a human embryo throbs, but those tissues have not yet formed an organ, so the pulsing should not be confused with a heartbeat.

“When throbbing of some tissue begins, it’s not a heart,” said Dr Sara Imershein, a gynecologist and obstetrician in Falls Church, Virginia. “Really, we call it an embryo until about nine weeks from last menstrual period,” or roughly three weeks after the new laws prohibit termination of pregnancy.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

It would be more accurate to call these bills “fetal pole cardiac activity” measures, said Gunter. Though it doesn’t roll off the tongue, the term would capture the state of an embryo at six weeks, which appears more fish-like than human baby.

“It’s a process – the heart doesn’t just pop up one day,” said Imershein. “It’s not a little child that just appears and just grows larger”, in contrast to imagery often invoked by anti-abortion campaigns of embryos as tiny, miniaturized infants.

Misleading names like “heartbeat”move the debate away from medical considerations for a woman’s decision to get an abortion, said Gunter.

Similarly, the phrase “late-term” is misleading. A normal human gestation is 40 weeks. Medically speaking, “late-term” means 41-42 weeks.

But anti-abortion activists twisted the phrase into a political construct understood to be any abortion after the 21st week, late in the second trimester. “Nobody is doing late-term abortions – it doesn’t happen,” said Gunter of the medical definition. “But it’s become a part of our lexicon now.”

She recalled an instance when she worked in Kansas, where abortions were banned at publicly funded medical centers. She had a first trimester patient with a serious and deteriorating medical condition. Her doctor recommended termination. In order to get clearance, Gunter was patched through to the state senator who sponsored the law. “I had to explain [it] to him. I had to ask him permission to do the abortion.”

FacebookTwitterPinterest

“What was really shocking to me was that when I called him – I had researched everything so that I could give him all the statistics – and I barely said two lines and he said, ‘Oh doctor, do whatever you think is necessary’,” she said. “If doing what I thought is necessary is what you believe in, why have the law?”

Gunter said six weeks is not enough time to make informed medical choices. It’s before most women know they’re pregnant, and before fetal malformations can be diagnosed. The risks of medical conditions, such as lupus, won’t be apparent that early. There are some heart conditions “where we say, you should not be pregnant”, said Gunter. “The risk of death is 50%. We know that the second the pregnancy test is positive. But what if that person doesn’t seek medical care until they’re eight weeks?”

“The whole point [of these bills] is to introduce terminology that makes people think differently about pregnancy,” said Gunter.

In practice, she said, six-week measures are effectively abortion bans – a fact that misleading names such as “heartbeat bill” could obscure. “We can’t use the incorrect language in the bills,” said Gunter. “Because once you start using incorrect language, you’ve basically conceded.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/24/its-not-a-little-child-gynecologists-join-the-fight-against-six-week-abortion-bans?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2Wb9Sfk05iIPS82CDPWzn_XqD3ZtHBtY240Z6LILVF9aVwCTrC4AywQVA#Echobox=1556113321

U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane issued a preliminary ruling from the bench Tuesday in federal court in Portland, after hearing three and a half hours of oral argument on the Title X Family Planning program rule changes.

U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane late Tuesday said he’ll grant a preliminary injunction against new federal restrictions that bar taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from referring patients to abortion providers, calling the rule a “ham-fisted approach to public health policy.”

Oregon is one of 20 states and the District of Columbia that challenged the Trump administration’s changes to the Title X family planning program in U.S. District Court in Oregon, along with Planned Parenthood affiliates and the American Medical Association.

They sought a national injunction. But the judge said he’s reluctant to set “national health care’’ policy and would describe the scope of his injunction in a formal written opinion soon. The U.S. Justice Department urged any injunction apply only to the plaintiffs in this case, noting at least four similar suits pending in other states.

McShane said the so-called “gag rule” — barring physicians from referring patients who don’t want to continue their pregnancies to an abortion provider — prevents doctors from behaving like medical professionals.

The judge also found that it would create a class of low-income women who couldn’t receive a full range of medical care options, foster a “geographic vacuum” in reproductive health care clinics and likely cause an increase in abortions due to more unwanted pregnancies.

He said the rule, which is set to go into effect May 3, represents an “arrogant assumption” that government is better suited to direct health care instead of providers.

The judge said he’d also grant a preliminary injunction to stop another change — the so-called “separation” rule prohibiting federally funded family planning clinics from being housed in the same place as abortion providers.

The judge’s decision from the bench followed three and a half hours of oral argument in federal court in Portland, with Oregon’s Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum leading off the hearing.

“Title X grant funds are a true safety net for low income individuals and those who would not be able to access care, due to a lack of insurance or other barriers,” Rosenblum said. “Put simply, this is an attempt to politicize what has been a successful, nonpolitical public health program for 50 years.”

Attorney Andrew M. Bernie, for the federal government, countered that there had been no showing of “irreparable harm” from the rules and nothing in the administrative record to suggest a political motivation for the changes.

The rules are supported by 14 other states and are in line with the 1991 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld prior U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations that prohibited employees in federally funded family-planning facilities from counseling a patient on abortion, Bernie argued.

But the judge wasn’t swayed by Bernie’s argument, particularly the Justice Department’s reliance on a nearly 30-year-old Supreme Court case.

“We are looking for good health outcomes. Are these rules going to bring about good health outcomes?” McShane repeatedly asked Bernie.

McShane presented a hypothetical scenario, saying if he went to his doctor and asked for a vasectomy and his doctor referred him only to a fertility clinic, “that would seem insane to you, right?”

The judge said the government hadn’t provided him with any data to counter medical experts’ assertions that restricting medical professionals from discussing all reproductive health options with patients would result in increases in unwanted pregnancies, use of ineffective contraceptives and increases in sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

Attorney Alan Schoenfeld, representing the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Medical Association, said all Planned Parenthood providers will leave the Title X program as a result of the “gag rule” as it requires them to practice unethically.

Schoenfeld said the rules would cause a public health crisis, with no other clinics able to fill the gap in certain communities, reducing access to early cancer screening and other health care services for low-income women. Planned Parenthood operates about 40 percent of the Title X clinics in the country.

Bernie, in response, said Planned Parenthood is entitled to its views about medical ethics, but it’s “not allowed to set the parameters for the Title X program.”

The judge said he didn’t want to get into a political discussion, but then asked the Justice Department lawyer, “Is it a political motivation to defund Planned Parenthood, regardless of health outcomes?”

Bernie said the Department of Health and Human Services believes the rules best reflect Section 1008 of the Title X statute, which prohibits abortion as a method of family planning.

Schoenfeld argued there was no example cited of any misuse of Title X funds in the last half century.

“This is a victory for patients and doctors in this country,” said Dr. Leana Wen, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, after the judge’s ruling from the bench.

But Wen added that since the relief is preliminary, Planned Parenthood “will continue to fight the Trump-Pence administration in court and in Congress to ensure our patients’ health and rights are protected.”

Source: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/04/federal-judge-in-oregon-to-grant-preliminary-injunction-against-trumps-title-x-rules-restricting-abortion-access.html?fbclid=IwAR2kDanQzStszsyxOecUk68DyPZ5uRG-0dtYC9YmgqLxlfQ5Y_oYnYGa5HQ

Ohio became the latest state on Thursday to sign into law one of the country’s most stringent abortion laws, joining a league of states that are set to ban or have already banned abortion at six weeks. So, which states have banned abortion at six weeks? Here’s what you need to know.

The abortion law, dubbed “heartbeat bills” by advocates, prohibits abortions after detection of a fetal heartbeat during an ultrasound, which doctors say can be as early as five or six weeks into the pregnancy. This is oftentimes before women, trans, and non-binary individuals know they are pregnant. Ohio’s version of the bill would subject doctors who perform an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat would be subject to a $20,000 fine from the state medical board, could have their medical licenses suspended or revoked, and could face up to a year in prison, according to The Hill and NPR.

The ban, signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio — in stark contrast to the two-time veto of a similar bill by his predecessor former Gov. John Kasich — late last week is part of a wide-sweeping effort at the state level to ban abortion. States like North Dakota, Arkansas, Kentucky, Iowa, and Mississippi have also passed similar laws, according to The Hill, however, many of the passed abortion bans in these states have been reviewed or thrown out by the courts. Mississippi’s law is set to take effect in July, according to the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, similar heartbeat bills have advanced in one chamber of state legislatures in Missouri and Tennessee, according to USA Today, and may be on their way to pass in the near future. The legislation has been introduced in Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia.

For many anti-abortion activists and conservative leaders, this is an opportunity that could eventually lead to a Supreme Court challenge of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Indeed, human-right groups including the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have already promised legal action to challenge the bills. “Gov. DeWine just signed the Ohio law that virtually bans all abortion care. We’ll see you in court,” the ACLU tweeted following Ohio’s decision on Thursday.

Planned Parenthood promised eventual Supreme Court action to battle out the national issue. “If this is what it takes, we will see you at the Supreme Court,” the organization’s Ohio president Iris Harvey said at a rally on Wednesday, NPR reported.

Those looking to join the fight can contribute in a multitude of ways. Currently, House Republicans are attempting to advance a bill in Congress that, if passed, would be a federal restriction on abortion after six weeks. While a bill like this one is likely to face considerable obstacles, considering Democrats currently control the House of Representatives, you can sign this petition by NARAL that would firmly oppose any anti-abortion legislation before it even gains traction.

Be sure to contact your representatives to make your pro-choice stance clear and affect legislation on a local level before it can advance to policy. Begin by going to this guide, which will direct you to your state assembly or legislature website, and then navigate to find your state website’s page to identify your representatives. To find your governor’s information, go to this website and simply choose your state from the drop-down menu.

To find out who represents you in Congress, you can visit the House and Senate’s websites and then enter your zip code or state name. Once you find the names of your representatives, you can locate their contact information through the House and Senate directories.

If you’re looking to support organizations that are gearing up for legal battles, donations can go a long way. Oftentimes, nonprofit organizations benefit the most from monthly donations of any amount. Organizations that could benefit from your donations to fight abortion laws include NARAL, state offices of the ACLU, and the national ACLU organization.

Outside of donating, you can also raise money for these organizations by teaming up with the organization and creating your own personal fundraising campaign. If you have a birthday coming up, you can ask family and friends to donate the amount of your age to a selected organization as your birthday gift. If you’re planning on getting hitched, you can make an organization like the ACLU a part of your wedding registry and ask your guests to donate to the cause instead of giving traditional gifts. Here are do-it-yourself fundraising tipspublished by the ACLU that can get you started.

With an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court bench and multiple states rallying to fight the good fight on abortion laws, it is now more important than ever to take action to preserve women’s rights.

Source: https://www.romper.com/p/which-states-have-banned-abortion-at-6-weeks-heres-how-you-can-fight-heartbeat-bills-17036259