February 12, 2019

‘Uteruses Are Being Penalized’: Massachusetts Sees Pro-Choice Legislative Blitz

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

Massachusetts Democrats are primed to pass a series of pro-choice bills, including one that would provide medication abortion at colleges across the state

After repealing antiquated anti-choice laws last year, Massachusetts legislators are looking to further bolster abortion access with the newly filed Remove Obstacles and Expand (ROE) Abortion Access Act, which aims to remove anti-choice restrictions. 
 Shutterstock.com

Massachusetts state Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (D-Northampton) has seen how hard it is for low-income families and students on remote college campuses to access or pay for abortion care.

A new lawmaker and the first woman to hold her district seat, Sabadosa has volunteered with the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts and been on the board and intake team of the Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts. A founding board member of DARLA, the Doula Association for Reproductive Loss and Abortion, Sabadosa told Rewire.News she drew from her experience to introduce bills this session to expand reproductive access in the Bay State and set a high standard for health care.

HD 3658 would require public universities to provide medication abortion, a nonsurgical regime of two drugs. The “Act to Establish Health Equity for Pregnant Persons,” HD 3274/SD 1450, would get rid of co-pays for abortion care.

“Even though we have some fairly good laws in Massachusetts around abortion, financial abilities really impact access, so it felt like it was important to address a problem I’m seeing regularly,” Sabadosa said.

MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program, covers abortion care, but most private insurances don’t. People have called the Abortion Rights Fund to complain about the high cost of their deductible and how they have to basically pay for the procedure out of pocket, Sabadosa said.

“Unfortunately we live in a world where $730 for an abortion makes it completely inaccessible for most people. That’s only the cost of a medical abortion during the first ten weeks; it gets exponentially more expensive after that,” she said. “So it struck us that really this is an economic disparity. We are charging people with uteruses more money for health care. Pregnancy is another area where the costs are exponential, so women or people with uteruses are being penalized simply because these are health services they may require at some time in their lives.”

The bill would require health insurance plans cover all pregnancy-related care, including abortion care, prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum care, without cost sharing.

“Pregnancy care—prenatal, labor and delivery, and postpartum care are fundamental to ensuring healthy pregnancies and babies. To see Massachusetts make pregnancy coverage a priority along with abortion and other reproductive health care shows that they are putting patients first,” Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, said in an email.

California’s Democratic-majority legislature last year passed a first-of-its-kind bill to provide medication abortion on college campuses, but Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed the measure after some university officials pushed back against the pro-choice bill. The bill would have affected more than 400,000 students on campuses across California.

Sabadosa is finalizing a bill requiring medication abortion options be available at public college campuses in the state. “We have a lot of students at UMass Amherst who have a hard time getting to a clinic to get abortion care because the nearest clinic is in Springfield, which is not close, and there is no public transportation to get there,” she said.

After repealing antiquated anti-choice laws last year, Massachusetts legislators are looking to further bolster abortion access with the newly filed Remove Obstacles and Expand (ROE) Abortion Access Act (HD 2548/SD 109), which aims to remove anti-choice restrictions.

“The ROE Act breaks down barriers to ensure that women are able to receive appropriate medical care, according to a physician’s best judgement, in tragic circumstances when there are lethal abnormalities or a risk to the woman’s life during the course of a pregnancy. The law should reflect that these are very difficult decisions that should be made between a woman and her doctor,” sponsor Sen. Harriette L. Chandler (D-Worcester) said in a statement.

This is a top priority for advocates because it “removes the onerous, shaming, and medically unnecessary restrictions that deny people care in Massachusetts,” Tricia Wajda, vice president of external affairs at the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts, said in a statement. “This important legislation reflects the values of the vast majority of people in Massachusetts who believe women should make their own personal health care decisions, and who support the right to access abortion safely and legally, without interference from politicians.”

The ROE Act would go above and beyond the protections of Roe v. Wade, advocates say, by not only codifying the right to abortion but also removing obstacles like parental consent and forced waiting periods; allowing for abortions after 24 weeks in cases of lethal fetal anomalies; ensuring medical decisions remain between a patient and doctor; and removing medically inaccurate terms like “unborn child” from state law.

Sabadosa’s two bills, which would reduce the expense of abortion care and expand medication abortion access to public universities, could surpass both the Roe protections passed by Democrats in New Yorklast month and Oregon’s reproductive rights laws, often considered the gold standard in abortion protections, activists said. In addition to making private health insurance providers cover the cost of abortion care, Oregon pays for undocumented residents to receive abortion care.

“Massachusetts has a long history of leading the nation on health care access. In this uncertain environment, we must be visionary and articulate a clear vision of reproductive freedom for all Bay Staters,” Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said in a statement. “Passage of the ROE Act will ensure the people of Massachusetts are able to access the care they need without political interference.”

Massachusetts lawmakers expect Gov. Charlie Baker (R) to sign off on all three bills. Baker has opposedthe Trump administration’s anti-choice policies and has supported the right to abortion care.

Baker’s office did not respond to a query from Rewire.News.

“Individual rights and freedoms, including the right to access safe and legal abortion, are at the heart of who we are as a Commonwealth, but that commitment to reproductive freedom and equitable access to health care is blatantly missing from our current laws around abortion,” Wajda said. “As a state known as a health care pioneer, Massachusetts’ laws must trust medical professionals, end government intrusion into personal medical decisions, and declare that abortion is health care.”

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2019/02/12/uteruses-are-being-penalized-massachusetts-sees-pro-choice-legislative-blitz/

 

February 11, 2019

Supreme Court Extends Stay to Block Louisiana Abortion Restriction

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

The Supreme Court Thursday evening announced it will keep in place a stay that blocks a restrictive Louisiana abortion law. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s four liberals in preventing the law from going into effect.

The brief order gives the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is challenging the law, time to file a petition for certiorari. The Court, if it chose to hear that petition, would then rule on the merits of the case. The order is not a ruling on the merits of the case—only a ruling on whether an emergency stay is appropriate.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent arguing that the law should go into effect so that the Court can see how it affects state abortion clinics. He argues that the law might not have a dramatic effect on abortion availability. The dissent does not speak to the merits of the case, and cites only procedural issues.

Both opponents and supporters of the law agree that it would likely force all but one Louisiana abortion clinic to close.

Understanding Louisiana’s Abortion Law

In 2014, Louisiana enacted a restrictive abortion law that would require all abortion doctors to have privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their clinics. The law would close all but one Louisiana abortion clinic.

The Supreme Court previously struck down a substantially similar Texas law in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Citing that ruling, the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law. A district judge in Louisiana initially blocked the law, but the state appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel held that the law differed substantially from the Texas law, and reversed the ruling of the lower court. The 5th Circuit is the same federal court that ruled in favor of Texas in Whole Woman’s Health, only to be later reversed by the Supreme Court.

The Center for Reproductive Rights appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court last Friday issued a temporary stay to block the law from going into effect February 4th. Now the stay is extended, and the law will not go into effect Friday, as it otherwise would have.

Chipping Away at Roe

Record numbers of Americans—70% or more—believe that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. One recent survey even found that half of Republicans do not think the ruling should be reversed.  Republicans know that an outright reversal of Roe will be difficult, so they’ve instead opted to slowly chip away at it. The goal is to make abortion technically legal, while still inaccessible. Over time, they can slowly erode the law with new precedent, and perhaps eventually reverse it.

Central to this strategy is lying. We’ve seen this already with the response to New York’s recent move to protect abortion rights. The far right now insists that mothers routinely abort babies at 40 weeks, just for the fun of it. They hope that judges will believe them, and act to protect babies from their apparently homicidal mothers. The media is an enabler here. A 2016 study found that media coverage of abortion prominently features men lying about abortion.

Right now, there are at least 13 cases that could eventually make their way to the Supreme Court. The Louisiana law is just the beginning of the right’s long-game strategy. They remain mobilized and energized. Meanwhile, many on the left are unaware of the immediate threat to Roe.

Though 85% of voters say they do not want new state-level abortion restrictions, less than half have heard of these laws. Only about half say they are aware of the immediate threat to abortion rights.

Anti-Life, Anti-Choice

As the right attempts to destroy choice, they also continue to enact every conceivable strategy to harm families who opt to keep surprise pregnancies. They’ve done nothing to halt the epidemic of maternal deaths. The U.S. is now the most dangerous developed nation in which to give birth. They steadfastly oppose all strategies that are proven to reduce abortion rates. And they do not want to offer any support—food stamps, welfare, health insurance—to babies born to impoverished mothers.

Anti-choicers don’t care about life. They care about punishing women, including through the suffering of children.

Source: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/7/1832991/-Supreme-Court-Upholds-Stay-to-Block-Louisiana-Abortion-Restriction?utm_campaign=recent

 

February 10, 2019

These Pro-Choice Bills Could Change the Abortion Landscape

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

Democratic gains in the 2018 midterms have produced a range of pro-choice bills across the United States that would repeal abortion restrictions and open up abortion access.

As pro-choice legislators in states like New York fight to protect Roe v. Wade, lawmakers across the United States are joining the fray by filing pro-choice bills as reproductive health advocates are suing to remove discriminatory laws.

From bills to decriminalize abortion access in Nevada to states fighting back against the Trump administration’s rollback of the birth control benefit, legislators are pushing to protect access to reproductive health in 2019 while an anti-choice administration and Supreme Court threaten to curtail it.

It seems as if the pro-choice laws passed in California and New York are saying to legislators in more conservative states that change is possible after years of Republican-backed laws eroding access to abortion and contraception, Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at Guttmacher Institute, told Rewire.News.

“We have really started to see legislators in hostile states trying to change the conversation and push back, eventually saying enough is enough,” she said. “These bills mean that people are looking at all the ways to expand reproductive access.”

Nearly half the country, 21 states, is considered “hostile” or “very hostile” to abortion policy, a marked change from 2010, when ten states were hostile and none were deemed as very hostile, according to Guttmacher’s latest analysis. A lot of this activity is in response to the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, Nash said.

However, there is a pro-choice majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in nearly a decade, and a record number of women and pro-choice legislators nationwide after the midterms, signaling a new era.

Safeguarding Roe protections in the states 

States celebrated the anniversary of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision last month, and New York, where Democrats control both chambers of the legislature for the first time in a decade, passed the Reproductive Health Act after a lengthy fight to enshrine those protections statewide.

New Mexico and Nevada could be next to ax pre-Roe abortion bans with pro-choice bills. Lawmakers in Rhode Island, which has a new pro-choice majority, held hearings last week in the continued effort to pass similar Roe protections that anti-choice Democrats there have repeatedly blocked.

The “Trust Nevada Women Act” seeks to repeal criminal penalties for abortions performed outside the scope of Nevada’s abortion statute, including self-induced abortions, which are punishable by a minimum one-year and maximum 10-year prison sentence and a fine of up to $10,000 under state law. It seeks to change the state’s abortion informed consent law, and repeal the state’s forced parental notification statute, which was ruled unconstitutional in 1991, according to the Nevada Independent.

New Mexico Democrats are trying to remove its criminal penalties for abortion. The bill passed the house on Wednesday and will be considered in the state Senate. Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham intends to sign it.

Massachusetts repealed antiquated abortion laws last year but is looking to further bolster reproductive rights with two pro-choice bills this session: the Roe Act to remove restrictions on abortion, and a health equity act to require health insurance plans to cover all pregnancy-related care, including abortion.

Even in progressive Maine, where the right to abortion has long been protected, Gov. Janet Mills (D), who replaced the anti-choice Gov. Paul LePage, has vowed to fight national efforts to erode that right.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked an effort in Louisiana that advocates say would burden access to clinics that provide abortions. The measure, requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, passed in 2014, but never took effect.

Lawsuits challenge ‘physicians only’ anti-choice laws 

State-level lawmakers are working to expand access by trying to repeal physician-only laws that restrict physician assistants and advanced registered nurses from providing abortion care. Ten out of 33 states are facing lawsuits to eliminate these types of laws: Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, ThinkProgress reported.

Physician-only laws, supported primarily by GOP legislators, prevent people from getting the care they need and block qualified advanced practice clinicians from providing care, especially in low-income areas and medically underserved areas.

People in the largely rural Idaho, for example, already face significant barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health care services. In 2014, about 95 percent of Idaho counties had no abortion care provider. Requiring physician-only abortion serves to further reduce access without medical justification, advocates say.

Pro-choice advocates hit back against attacks on birth control access

Contraception is another area lawmakers are looking to expand. While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) required employers to provide contraceptive coverage without a co-pay, the Trump administration continues to fight it, stacking the Department of Health and Human Services with anti-choice activists who oppose contraception. A federal judge recently blocked Trump’s attack on the ACA’s birth control mandate.

According to Guttmacher, 29 states require insurers to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices; 14 states prohibit the cost coverage.

In Arkansas, lawmakers will weigh in on a bill that would allow women 18 and older to get birth control without a prescription from their doctor. In Michigan, the attorney general has filed a lawsuit to prevent employers from refusing contraceptive insurance coverage to workers on religious or moral grounds. In Texas, lawmakers have once again introduced “Rosie’s Law,” a bill that would expand Medicaid insurance coverage for abortion care, prevented in many states due to the discriminatory Hyde Amendment. The 1976 federal law banned the use of Medicaid insurance for abortion in all but a few narrow circumstances.

Others are fighting against logistical barriers like forced waiting periods, parental consent, targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws, and so-called heartbeat bans—all creations of conservative think tanks and anti-choice legislation mills.

“Conservative state legislatures are the last group anyone should want determining whether they have access to abortion care, and our increasingly conservative courts come in a close second,” said Pamela Merritt, co-director of Reproaction, a direct action group working toward reproductive justice. “Regardless of the political climate, reproductive oppression impacts everyone and every community, so supporting and organizing to expand access must be a top priority. It’s exciting to see activists and organizations embrace the reality that when we take bold unapologetic action, we create a more favorable climate for abortion rights and reproductive justice.”

Despite a conservative U.S. Supreme Court threatening to overturn Roe, more lawmakers seem eager to expand reproductive rights in their home states in 2019.

The midterms have made it clear that voters “want more access to health care, not less, including access to safe, legal abortion,” Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Rewire.News. Yet, more than 400 restrictions have been placed on abortion over the past seven years and 16 cases are aiming to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“States will be a critical backstop, which is why reproductive health care champions in state legislatures—red and blue—are stepping up to pass legislation that expands access,” Wen said. “The success of the Reproductive Health Act in New York shows what states can do when we work together to protect women’s health and rights. From Maine to Idaho to Missouri, we’re fighting for policies that expand access to reproductive health care could change people’s lives for the better.”

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2019/02/08/these-pro-choice-bills-could-change-the-abortion-landscape/

 

February 8, 2019

Explaining Trump’s talk of ‘late-term abortions’ during the State of the Union

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
[2] Comments 

A new law and a governor’s comments prompted the mention.

President Donald Trump brought up “late-term abortions” during the 2019 State of the Union, and it’s left doctors scratching their heads.

“As a board-certified Ob-Gyn, I wish people understood that the term ‘late-term abortion’ is not remotely a medical term. In fact, even Ob-Gyns don’t know what people are referring to when we hear this term,” said ABC News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jen Ashton.

The phrase has come up recently as a result of the passage of a law in New York concerning reproductive rights in the state, as well as comments made by the now-embattled governor of Virginia describing a hypothetical situation.

During his speech Tuesday night, Trump described how the New York law would “allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth” and said that “these are living, feeling, beautiful, babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world.”

That description made no mention about the rare circumstances that would lead to an abortion happening later in a pregnancy — which includes spinal and genetic anomalies that would prevent a viable life, rather than just a decision by the mother that she does not want the child — and the misconception has caused outrage and misunderstanding that doctors have tried to clear up.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a fact sheet in early February about abortions that take place later in a pregnancy. It begins by noting that “politicians should never interfere in the patient-physician relationship.”

Dr. Sarah Horvath, an OB-GYN who is in a family planning fellowship at ACOG, told ABC News that the phrase “late-term abortion” is “inaccurate and purposefully confusing language that’s used for political reasons.”

Anti-abortion rights activists pass the Capitol building during the 2018 March for Life, Jan. 19, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

(Alex Wong/Getty Images. FILE)  Anti-abortion rights activists pass the Capitol building during the 2018 March for Life, Jan. 19, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Why abortions take place later in pregnancies

Horvath said that there is no set time limit for what is considered “late” in a pregnancy. The average pregnancy spans 40 weeks.

States differ as to whether or not they set a time limit — typically either 20 or 24 weeks — as to when an abortion can be obtained, with exceptions, or if their limit is set to fetus “viability” which allows for individual case considerations to be taken into account.

Ashton explained that “there is a difference between first trimester terminations (up to 12 to 13 weeks) and second trimester terminations (generally up to 24 weeks).”

“In general, we use 24 weeks as the threshold for viability: the age at which a fetus can survive outside the uterus. But there are cases in which fetuses at 23 weeks can survive, and those in which fetuses of 25 weeks do not,” Ashton said.

More conservative states have been pushing for so-called “heartbeat” bills, where an abortion is banned, with exceptions, once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can occur as early as six weeks into a pregnancy when some women may not even know that they are pregnant.

The CDC reported in 2015 that 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or after the 21st week of a pregnancy, and Horvath said that fewer than 1 percent of abortions happen after 24 weeks of a pregnancy.

“In terms of second trimester terminations, there are often cases where serious anomalies are not detected in the fetus until the second trimester. There are also cases in which the life or medical condition of the woman is at serious risk if the pregnancy were to continue,” Ashton said.

Horvath said that she has had patients who face the “devastating” situation of having an abortion later in their pregnancy, including one patient who lived in New York.

Pro-abortion rights activists try to block anti-abortion rights activists in front of the Supreme Court during the annual March for Life on the anniversary of the historic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, Jan. 27, 2017.

(Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)  Pro-abortion rights activists try to block anti-abortion rights activists in front of the Supreme Court during the annual March for Life on the anniversary of the historic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, Jan. 27, 2017.

Horvath described how the patient, whose name she did not share, had a “very wanted pregnancy” and everything “looked like it was going to be a normal pregnancy” until the 26th week. It was at that point that the woman was diagnosed with a “lethal fetal skeletal anomaly.”

“It develops later in pregnancy. She had an ultrasound at 20 weeks that had shown a healthy pregnancy and it was only after 24 weeks that this was actually diagnosed,” Horvath said of the situation. “This is completely incompatible with life outside the uterus.”

The new law in New York

The situation with this patient occurred before New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act into law on Jan. 22 of this year. The law adjusted the legal framework for abortions in the state, setting it to a fetus viability standard as opposed to a set gestational age, and changing laws that criminalized certain later abortions.

Horvath said that the viability standard “is a much more accurate way of determining whether a fetus can live outside of the uterus.”

The ACOG, which is a nonprofit association with more than 58,000 members, uses viability as their standard as well.

“Viability is the capacity of the fetus for sustained survival outside the woman’s uterus. Whether or not this capacity exists is a medical determination, may vary with each pregnancy and is a matter of judgement of the responsible health care provider,” the ACOG wrote in a statement about their position on abortion.

In the case of the patient Horvath treated, because the new law was not yet in place in New York, and because when she was diagnosed with the lethal fetal skeletal anomaly her own life was not in danger, she “had no ability to obtain abortion care in her home state.”

“She was forced to continue to carry a pregnancy that she knew was never going to be able to survive and become a healthy baby,” Horvath said. “Several weeks later it demised in utero and she was then able to have the procedure to remove it from her uterus.”

The difference that the new law would have made in that patient’s case, Horvath said, was that she would have been able to be treated in her home state and not have to “wait with the knowledge that she was carrying a doomed pregnancy.”

“It’s really important to remember that every one of these situations is complicated and difficult for the woman and that’s why it’s much better that its left for her to discuss with her physician and the people in her life who can love her and support her and help her make the right decision for her,” Horvath said.

Political posturing

While the passage of the law in New York has prompted some discussion about abortion laws, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who previously worked as a pediatric neurologist before entering politics, also waded into the fray by talking about the issue during an appearance on a radio show.

President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address, with Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at the Capitol in Washington, Feb. 5, 2019.

(Doug Mills/Pool via Reuters)  President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address, with Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at the Capitol in Washington, Feb. 5, 2019.

Speaking to radio station WTOP about aborting a fetus later on in a pregnancy on Jan. 30, Northam said “it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

During the State of the Union, Trump said “the governor of Virginia … stated he would execute a baby after birth.” Trump also said that the law in New York would “allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.”

Horvath said that Trump’s characterizations are inaccurate.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/explaining-trumps-talk-late-term-abortions-state-union/story?id=60883835

 

February 7, 2019

Trump calls on Congress to ban ‘late-term’ abortions

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

© Greg Nash

President Trump called on lawmakers during his State of the Union address Tuesday night to ban “late-term” abortions, a policy that won’t pass a divided Congress.

“To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb,” Trump said during his speech.

The White House has said Trump backs legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. Senate Democrats blocked such a measure in January 2018.

Trump in his speech referenced bills in Virginia and New York that would ease abortion restrictions, measures that have faced backlash from anti-abortion groups in recent weeks.

“Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life,” Trump said.

“And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.”

Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen, a guest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), knocked the president’s comments on Twitter.

“Restrictions on abortion later in pregnancy prevent health care providers from giving their patients the best care possible. It’s my job to provide my patients with the information they need to make the best decision for themselves. I trust my patients; I trust women,” she tweeted.

The New York bill signed into law last month by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) allows abortions after 24 weeks if a doctor determines the woman’s life or health is at stake, or if the fetus is not viable.

A bill in Virginia would have made it easier for women to get abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy by requiring the approval of only one doctor instead of the three mandated under current law.

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/428647-trump-calls-on-congress-to-ban-late-term-abortions

 

February 5, 2019

Demand for certain forms of contraception increased after Trump’s election: study

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

© Getty Images

The demand for long-acting reversible contraception increased after the election of President Trump in November of 2016, according to a new study released Monday.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found a 21.6 percent increase in the insertion rates of long-acting reversible contraception, like IUDs and implants, in the 30 days after Trump was elected.

The authors of the study said the increase could be attributed to fears that Trump would follow through on his campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare, which requires employers cover 18 types of contraception in their insurance plans with no copays for beneficiaries.

The cost of an IUD without insurance coverage can range from $500 to $1,000, according to Planned Parenthood.

While the GOP’s efforts to repeal ObamaCare have failed, the administration has tried to issue rules broadening exemptions for employers that have moral or religious objections to providing contraception for their employees.

Those rules have been blocked from taking effect while they are challenged in court.

The study examined insertion rates among women 18-45 years old enrolled in commercial insurance during the 30 days before and after Nov. 8, 2016, and compared it to the same time frame the year prior.

If the study’s findings were projected to the 33 million women between the ages of 18 and 45 with employer-sponsored health insurance, the rate would be an additional 700 insertions per day in association with the 2016 election, the authors say.

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/428373-study-demand-for-iuds-implants-increased-after-trumps-election

 

February 4, 2019

Conservatives Are Perpetuating Dangerous Tropes About Patients Who Need Later Abortions

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
[3] Comments 

Leading conservative figures have used legislation proposed in Virginia and passed in New York to spread lies about abortion.

Democrat Kathy Tran, of Virginia’s House of Delegates, introduced and testified in favor of HB 2491. All Virginia’s bill would do is end the burdensome 24-hour waiting period, remove the state-mandated ultrasound law, and require one doctor—instead of three—to approve a request for third-trimester abortions. Why VA Matters 2017 / YouTube

As an OB-GYN, an abortion provider, and a researcher who studies abortion and contraception, the work I do is fundamentally rooted in medical evidence and science. That’s why I’ve been so frustrated to see a conversation about abortion dominated by ideologically driven misinformation rather than facts unfold over the last week.

Leading conservative figures have used legislation proposed in Virginia and passed in New York to spread lies about abortion. In fact, all Virginia’s bill would do is end the burdensome 24-hour waiting period, remove the state-mandated ultrasound law, and require one doctor—instead of three—to approve a request for third-trimester abortions. The bill also says the doctor approving the request would no longer need to certify that the harm to the patient’s health would be “substantial and irremediable.” In New York, the law simply removes abortion from the criminal code, codifies Roe v. Wade, and allows patients who need later abortions to get care in their home state rather than travel across the country.

But conservatives have perpetuated dangerous, malicious tropes about patients who seek abortions later in pregnancy and the doctors who provide them—all to advance a political agenda.

One popular talking point from anti-abortion activists, echoed by The View co-host Meghan McCainamong others, is that the United States is one of a handful of countries allowing abortion after 20 weeks’ gestation. This is flat-out wrong. In fact, around 65 countries allow abortion at this stage of pregnancy in cases of fetal malformations and anomalies.

McCain is right, in a way, when she portrays the United States as out of step with the rest of the world on abortion policies. But the reasons are different from ones she claims. As my research shows, unlike 78 percent of high-income countries, the United States does not provide public funding for abortion, making us a global outlier in this area. By international standards, the Hyde Amendment—which bans all federal funding of abortion care—is a truly radical and damaging policy, one that disproportionately affects patients of color.

So why do patients seek abortions after 20 weeks? There are many, often intersecting reasons. It is the tragic reality that complications may arise as the pregnancy progresses, some of which may affect the health of the patient or the fetus. And parents may choose to end the pregnancy—a decision that is personal and should not be subject to political interference.

But there’s another factor that exposes exactly why attempts to restrict abortions later in pregnancy for political or ideological reasons are so harmful to patients. Many other countries, including those whose laws about abortions later in pregnancy are more stringent than those in the United States, offer widespread access to early abortion. In contrast, abortion access in the United States largely depends on where you live.

I’ve seen patients who need abortions after 20 weeks because restrictive laws in their state—unnecessary waiting periods, ultrasound mandates, needless and burdensome requirements for providers that cause clinics to close—forced them to delay seeking care. In Texas, after a restrictive law went into effect that led to the closure of half of the state’s abortion clinics, the overall number of abortions dropped—but the number of second- and third-trimester abortions increased, likely because of the delays people faced accessing care earlier in pregnancy.

If conservatives are genuinely opposed to abortions later in pregnancy, they should be doing everything they can to expand access to earlier abortion. Instead, they’re doing the exact opposite; state legislatures across the country are proposing outrageous and unconstitutional bans that could outlaw abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, often before patients even know they’re pregnant. If these individuals believe abortion should be illegal entirely—a position dramatically at odds with the views of most people in the United States—they should be truthful about that belief, rather than using patients who need later abortions as a prop to advance their ideology.

Whether we ourselves would have a later abortion is not the question. The question is whether we’re able to show empathy for the patient making that decision. It’s my job as a doctor to support my patients in making the decisions that are best for their situation. When we have this debate, we must center the patients in the conversation, and use evidence-based research and facts to inform policy. I truly hope that Meghan McCain and others fanning the flames of outrage around this issue will take a step back, look at the evidence, and recognize the ways that their rhetoric puts patients and their doctors at risk.

In the meantime, those of us who believe in science should continue to advocate for abortion policies that are grounded in it. That’s the best way forward for patients, providers, and a society that enables its people to live healthy, free, dignified lives.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2019/02/04/conservatives-are-perpetuating-dangerous-tropes-about-patients-who-need-later-abortions/

 

February 3, 2019

Virginia abortion bill reignites national debate

Posted by laurasmith20200 under Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
[6] Comments 

© Getty Images

Republicans at the national level this week jumped into the firestorm surrounding a Virginia abortion-rights bill, marking a rare instance in which a state issue has drawn harsh rebukes from members of Congress and the White House.

The bill, proposed by a Democratic state lawmaker, would have made it easier for women to get third trimester abortions if their health was threatened by pregnancy.

While the same measure was introduced without controversy in recent years, comments from the bill’s author and Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) provoked outrage among anti-abortion groups, lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and even the president and vice president, with some saying the bill’s supporters were embracing infanticide.“To support, let alone cheer, late-term abortions not only marks a disturbing step backward by so-called ‘progressives’ — it also violates every demand of human decency,” Vice President Pence said in a National Review editorial published Thursday. “There’s another word for this: infanticide. And it is morally reprehensible and evil.”

In a video that went viral this week, bill sponsor Kathy Tran acknowledged that the legislation would allow a woman who is dilating to request an abortion if a doctor determined that childbirth would impair her mental health.

“It would allow that, yes,” Tran said in response to questions from House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R) during a committee hearing.

The measure failed to make it out of committee.

Virginia doesn’t have any time constraints for those seeking abortions, but Tran’s bill would have made it easier for women to get abortions in the third trimester by requiring the approval of only one doctor instead of the three mandated under current law.

By the time Northam was asked about the bill on a local radio show Wednesday, the controversy had already erupted on social media.He then added fuel to the fire when he said that third-term abortions are rare and typically occur when an infant is severely deformed or unable to survive after birth.

“In this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I could tell you exactly what would happen: the infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated, if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said.

“I think this was really blown out of proportion,” he added.

The governor later found himself at the center of a controversy after admitting he had appeared in a racist photo from when he was in medical school.

Republicans argue that Northam’s comments regarding the abortion bill were an endorsement of infanticide.

“Let’s be really clear about what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about fourth trimester abortion, or what anyone in the normal world calls infanticide,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Thursday on the Senate floor after reading Northam’s comments aloud.

“We’re talking about killing a baby that’s been born,” he said, pointing to Northam’s comments about the “discussion” between the mother and the doctors.

“And then a decision or debate would be had about whether or not you could kill that little baby,” Sasse said, offering his interpretation of Northam’s comments.

Sasse said he will expedite a bill for consideration on Monday that requires medical care for babies that survive abortions.

President Trump, GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel were among those who criticized Northam’s comments.

“I’m surprised that he did that,” Trump said in an interview with the Daily Caller, referring to Northam. “This is going to lift up the whole pro-life movement like maybe it’s never been lifted up before.”

A White House official on Friday said Trump would address “the fundamental importance and Respect of human life” in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday.

“I never thought I would see the day America had government officials who only support legal infanticide,” Rubio tweeted.

Northam’s office said the governor’s comments were not referring to infanticide, and that critics were making “bad faith” arguments.

“[Northam’s] comments focus on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor,” said Northam spokeswoman Ofirah Yheskel on Twitter.

“Extrapolating otherwise is bad faith and why health decisions should be between a woman and her doctor,” she added.

National anti-abortion groups like the Susan B. Anthony List and the National Right to Life have energized their supporters over the controversy, saying it’s an indication of where the Democratic Party is heading.

They drew comparisons to a New York bill signed into law last week by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) that allows abortions after 24 weeks if a doctor determines the woman’s life or health is at stake, or if the fetus is not viable.

“On the heels of New York’s radical expansion of abortion, Delegate Tran’s bill and Governor Northam’s statements reveal with alarming clarity what the modern Democratic Party stands for and their agenda for our nation – abortion on demand, up until the moment of delivery and even beyond,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. “This position is irreconcilable with the beliefs, values, and desires of most Americans.”

Northam’s defenders contend that abortion opponents are misleading the public.

“The misinformation being spewed by anti-choice politicians, right-wing media and Trump around VA and NY’s abortion bills is egregious and we must set the record straight and remember the anti-choice movement has one goal: ban abortion and criminalize women and doctors,” tweeted Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which worked to elect Northam in 2017.

“To work towards this goal, they must deceive the public and twist the facts, especially when it comes to women who need abortion later in pregnancy,” she added.

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/428130-virginia-abortion-bill-reignites-national-debate?fbclid=IwAR30NaMWte5q_m3eUV9wjELU1-31HS-aFoAJN1iyNkox4O8k3q4jBuS0JQA

 

February 2, 2019

Anti-Choice Group Broke Tax Laws to Back Brutal Abortion Laws Overseas, Watchdogs Say

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

Human Life International, an anti-choice group based in Virginia, allegedly endorsed anti-choice political candidates in the Philippines in violation of its tax-exempt status.

The complaint to the IRS accuses Human Life International of violating its tax-exempt status by lobbying for laws prohibiting abortion and campaigning for anti-choice political candidates in the Philippines.
DINESH B RAUT / Shutterstock.com

Watchdog groups claim Human Life International (HLI), a little-known nonprofit, has illegally funded anti-choice campaigns in developing countries that criminalize abortion care.

Campaign for Accountability (CfA) filed a complaint this week asking the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate HLI’s activities in the Philippines, alleging the anti-choice group blatantly violated tax laws by engaging in undisclosed political lobbying in a country where abortion care has been illegal for decades.

“HLI should not be able to benefit from its 501(c)(3) status here in the United States while simultaneous flouting IRS rules prohibiting its involvement in partisan politics abroad,” CfA Counsel Alice Huling told Rewire.News in an email. “This is all the more egregious when the foreign country is one with such high maternal mortality rates and where abortion is illegal and highly stigmatized. A tax-exempt public charity like HLI should be working to solve these issues, not exacerbate them.”

Equity Forward released its own report Wednesday accusing HLI of promoting laws that harm and imprison women for their reproductive health-care decisions. Equity Forward says that HLI spent more than $1 million in the Philippines since 2000 and led the charge against the country’s 2012 Reproductive Health Bill, which funds free contraceptives, supports reproductive health services in government hospitals, and requires public schools teach sex education. The law passed in December 2012 after being stuck in the Philippine Congress for 14 years.

HLI claims to be “the world’s largest pro-life and pro-family educational apostolate,” with affiliates in more than 100 countries. Its headquarters in Virginia works on “a complex web of anti-abortion causes, organizations, businesses and even a private school,” according to Equity Forward.

“HLI portrays itself as compassionate and uninterested in criminalizing women for their reproductive health care decisions, but these bombshell developments revealing their influence overseas tell a drastically different story. Their role in working to jail women in El Salvador, the Philippines, and elsewhere cannot be ignored,” Mary Alice Carter, executive director of Equity Forward, said in a statement.

CfA’s January 30 letter to the IRS says HLI violated its tax-exempt status by advocating for laws prohibiting abortion and endorsing anti-choice political candidates in the Philippines in 2010, 2011, and 2012, while failing to report those expenses on tax forms.

Abortion has been criminalized in the Philippines for more than a century, and the procedure is banned there with no exceptions. Despite this, clandestine abortions are conducted widely because of the high level of unintended pregnancies and low contraception use, according to the Guttmacher Institute; the illegal and unsafe nature contributes to the country’s high maternal mortality rate. Even doctors in the Philippines report being biased against women who have undergone abortion care, Guttmacher reports.

About 1,000 Filipino women die each year from abortion-related complications, and an untold number suffer from untreated complications, according to Guttmacher. Abortion stigma prevents Filipinos from seeking medical care after receiving a clandestine abortion, Guttmacher notes. Projections based on data from 2000 show that 100,000 people were hospitalized for abortion complications in 2012.

HLI’s tax forms show it regularly makes grants to organizations in East Asia, including the Philippines, to promote anti-abortion measures and anti-choice candidates. The CfA complaint names Rene Bullecer, a physician who serves as the HLI country director in the Philippines, and Ligaya Acosta, HLI’s regional director of Asia and Oceania and a resident of the Philippines.

HLI’s grants to organizations in the Philippines significantly decreased in tax year 2014, according to CfA, coinciding with HLI’s failure to block the Reproductive Health Bill in December 2012 and to elect more anti-choice candidates to the Filipino Congress in May 2013.

HLI also organized anti-choice rallies, lobbied local politicians, targeted reproductive health agendas, and directed representatives to vote against progressive bills, including abortion rights measures, the letter notes.

HLI is known to have “ties to violent anti-abortionists and extreme tactics [that] made it too controversial for the UN,” and HLI was denied consultative status to the UN in 1993, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in 2014. In 1997, the group set up C-FAM, an SPLC-designated hate group, as its United Nations lobbying arm, and “shifted its rhetoric to include vague terminology like ‘traditional values’ and ‘respect for sovereignty,’ (useful for countries that employ repressive policies and wish to avoid scrutiny for human rights violations).”

HLI was founded by an ultra-conservative D.C.-based Catholic priest who long claimed the pro-choice movement was full of Jews perpetrating another Holocaust. HLI shares its office building in Virginia with LifeSite, a Catholic anti-choice website, Salon reported this week. Salon reports that an HLI spokesperson has denied CfA’s allegations. HLI did not respond to Rewire.News by press time.

“HLI should be investigated and held accountable for its actions,” CfA’s Huling said a the press release.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/31/anti-choice-group-broke-tax-laws-to-back-brutal-abortion-laws-overseas-watchdogs-say/

 

February 1, 2019

Outrage as video shows Virginia abortion bill sponsor saying plan would allow termination up until birth

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

There is outrage as a video showing Virginia Rep. Kathy Tran saying the plan would allow abortions up until the moment of birth.

The abortion debate erupted anew this week after a video surfaced showing the Democratic sponsor of a Virginia abortion proposal acknowledging it could allow women to terminate a pregnancy up until the moment before birth, for reasons including mental health.

“First New York, and now a proposed Virginia bill that would legalize abortion up to the moment of birth,” tweeted Kentucky Republican Gov. Matt Bevin. “This is a sad commentary on the culture of death that continues to creep insidiously into the laws of our [country].”

Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran is the sponsor of The Repeal Act, which seeks to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions. The bill — which was tabled in committee this week — has the support of top Democrats in the state, including Gov. Ralph Northam.

The bill would remove a number of restrictions currently in place regarding late-term abortions, including doing away with the requirement that two other physicians certify a third-trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health. The third trimester lasts until 40 weeks.

Todd Gilbert, the Republican House majority leader, questioned Tran about the bill during a hearing Monday. He asked Tran if a woman who has physical signs she is about to give birth could request an abortion if a physician said it could impair her “mental health.”

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth. She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified — she’s dilating,” he asked.

“Mr. Chairman, that would be … a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point,” Tran replied.

“I understand that,” Gilbert replied. “I’m asking if your bill allows that.”

Tran replied: “My bill would allow that, yes.”

Virginia Republicans shared video of the exchange, posting, “Heartbreaking… This isn’t in New York, this isn’t in California, this happened just this week right here in Virginia.”

“Virginia House Democrats proposed legislation to allow abortions up to just seconds before that precious child takes their first breath…Thankfully, our strong conservative majority was able to defeat this bill,” the Virginia House of Delegates Republican Caucus posted on Facebook.

In promoting the bill, Tran has said it “eliminates medically unnecessary and unduly burdensome requirements that make it difficult for women to access abortions,” recognizing that “women have the constitutional right to make healthcare decisions about their own bodies.”

The effort in Virginia follows New York passing a bill last week loosening the restrictions on abortion, as New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington also pass new laws expanding abortion access or move to strip old laws from the books that limit abortions.

The loosening of the laws comes as pro-choice activists fear the newly conservative Supreme Court will overturn the 1973 ruling that made abortions legal.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week directed the One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit in pink Tuesday to celebrate the passage of “Reproductive Health Act.”

Under the Reproductive Health Act, non-doctors are now allowed to conduct abortions and the procedure could be done until the mother’s due date if the woman’s health is endangered or if the fetus is not viable. The previous law only allowed abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman’s life was at risk.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, 16 states could take steps to ban abortion. Four have laws that would trigger bans, while 12 others have anti-abortion laws on the books that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts or have not been enforced due to the 1973 Supreme Court decision, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organization.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/outrage-after-virginia-abortion-bill-sponsor-admits-pregnancies-could-be-terminated-up-until-birth?fbclid=IwAR3xE38ub5Wmv4yO2GdJUQJGDSscfZNk8g–sC8JCBR2zqWyqAEwmWM5Jd0

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »