November 10, 2018

Abortion clinics on edge after woman who shot Kansas doctor is released from prison

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

Abortion clinics across the country were taking extra precautions Wednesday after the anti-abortion activist who shot Wichita physician George Tiller in 1993 and committed a string of clinic attacks in several states was released from prison.

Rachelle “Shelley” Shannon, the Oregon woman whose actions once triggered a federal investigation into the possible existence of a national conspiracy of anti-abortion terrorists, had been living in a halfway house in Portland, Ore., since May. She has spent 25 years in custody.

“We’re extremely concerned,” said Katherine Spillar, executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “We’re alerting providers, briefing them and making sure they have enough security precautions in place.

“We know by her own writings and the writings of those who went on to commit violence that this is a woman who inspired three murders.”

Shannon’s release was confirmed Wednesday by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. She will be on supervised release for three years, but the conditions of her release are not public information, the bureau said.

“She’s going on probation,” said the Rev. Donald Spitz, an anti-abortion activist who has remained in regular contact with Shannon. “She said the conditions of release are going to be very strict.”

Spitz, leader of Pro-Life Virginia and sponsor of the Army of God website, which supports those who have committed violence against abortion clinics and doctors, said the fears of abortion-rights advocates are unfounded.

“I don’t think she’ll be doing anything violent,” he said. “Of course, no one knows, but I’d be very surprised.”

Spitz said he had an hour-long phone conversation with Shannon on Monday.

“She’s very upbeat,” he said. “She’s glad to be getting out, she’s going to church again. Just doing everyday things.”

He said Shannon told him she will likely be prohibited from communicating with anti-abortion extremists for some time.

“It’s a very common thing that they do that,” Spitz said. “So I won’t be able to speak to her again once she leaves the halfway house for 2½ years. I don’t know how closely they monitor that, but she’s not going to take any chances. She’s not going to contact anybody.”

Spitz said he had no details on Shannon’s plans: “She’ll probably be trying to get her own place to live and looking for a job.”

Shannon, now 62, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for shooting and wounding Tiller and 20 years for six firebombings and two acid attacks at abortion clinics in California, Oregon and Nevada.

The former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Shannon also has concerns about her being released.

“She’s completely unrehabilitated and totally incorrigible,” said Stephen Peifer, the lead prosecutor on Shannon’s federal case in Portland in 1995. “She has the same mentality and goals that she had when she was convicted.

“She may do something violent herself,” he said, “but that’s not as likely as her counseling and advising other people to do it. That’s her track record.”

That’s why stringent conditions will be placed on her during her probation period, he said.

“The probation office is going to be very careful in terms of her associates and naming people that she specifically cannot associate with,” he said. “I’m sure she’ll have strict supervision. They were very concerned.”

News of Shannon’s release has clinic operators on edge. In addition to showing no remorse for her actions, they say, Shannon has been visited in prison by several activists who believe that killing abortion doctors is an act of justifiable homicide. Clinic supporters also note that Tiller, a regular target of abortion protesters because he was one of a handful of doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions, was shot to death in 2009 by Kansas City-area anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder, who had admired Shannon and visited her many times in prison.

Among Shannon’s other prison visitors in recent years: Kansas City-area activist Regina Dinwiddie, who made headlines in 1995 when a federal judge ordered her to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. Dinwiddie attended Roeder’s murder trial and spoke on his behalf at his sentencing, telling the court that “Scott loved our country and he knew the terror of our Lord regarding the shedding of innocent blood.”

Another of Shannon’s visitors was Dave Leach, an activist from Des Moines, Iowa, and another advocate of the “justifiable homicide” position. Leach, speaking to The Star on Tuesday as he worked at an Iowa polling booth, said he visited Shannon once a year when she was incarcerated at the Waseca Federal Correctional Facility in Minnesota.

Some prison visits for Shannon’s supporters, he said, were funded by a doctor from Ohio who opposes abortion.

“He gave a bunch of money to allow several of us to go visit her,” Leach said.

Leach said he last spoke to Shannon about a month ago. He said the concerns that she might commit violence again were “silly,” then added, “Well, I guess anything’s possible with human beings.

“But I can’t imagine Shelley, after all this time,” he said. “They’ll be watching her pretty closely.”

So will clinic operators.

“Shelley Shannon’s release absolutely makes us nervous,” said The Very Rev. Katherine H. Ragsdale, interim president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation. “She’s not only committed multiple acts of violence herself, but has encouraged violence in others.”

Ragsdale said clinics have seen a spike in violence and disruption of services in the past year.

“Trespassing more than tripled, threats of harm have nearly doubled, and incidents of obstruction rose from 580 in 2016 to more than 1,700 in 2017,” she said. “They’re testing the waters, checking to see what they can get away with. And that emboldens the Shelley Shannons of the world.”

Julie Burkhart, a former employee of Tiller’s and founder and CEO of Trust Women Foundation, which operates the Trust Women Wichita clinic as well as clinics in Oklahoma City and Seattle, said Shannon’s release “raises deep concerns.”

“She tried to murder my boss,” Burkhart said. “And I absolutely do not believe under any circumstances that Shelley Shannon is reformed. She is still as dangerous today as she was in August of 1993.”

Shannon was a 37-year-old Oregon homemaker when she boarded a Greyhound bus in her hometown of Grants Pass and went to Oklahoma City. There, she rented a car and headed to Tiller’s clinic in Wichita. The clinic, Women’s Health Care Services, had been the target of numerous protests, was bombed in 1986 and was the focus of Operation Rescue’s 46-day “Summer of Mercy” campaign in 1991 that resulted in more than 2,600 arrests.

Shannon shot Tiller as he drove out of the clinic parking lot, striking him in both arms. Tiller was injured but returned to work the next day.

The shooting was the second attack on an abortion doctor in five months. In March 1993, Michael Griffin shot a physician to death outside a clinic in Pensacola, Fla.

Shannon was arrested in Oklahoma City several hours after shooting Tiller as she tried to return her rental car. When she was booked into jail, police found a letter she’d written to her daughter describing what she’d done.

“I’m not denying I shot Tiller,” she wrote. “But I deny that it was wrong. It was the most holy, most righteous thing I’ve ever done. I have no regrets.”

Five weeks later, authorities dug up an assortment of documents in Shannon’s back yard. Among the documents were her diary, books and manuals about bomb-making, letters from other anti-activists and several “Army of God” manuals.

The anonymous author of “The Army of God” document describes it as “a How-To Manual of means to disrupt and ultimately destroy Satan’s power to kill our children, God’s children.”

Shannon was cited in the manual, going by the name “Shaggy West.” In her house, investigators discovered Shannon’s computer files describing clinic arsons and acid attacks she had committed.

In July 1994, less than a year after Shannon shot Tiller, Florida anti-abortion activist Paul Hill killed an abortion doctor and his bodyguard outside another Pensacola clinic. Hill had attended Shannon’s trial in Wichita and held a news conference in the courthouse to defend her actions.

Another fan of Shannon’s was Roeder, the man who killed Tiller in 2009. At his murder trial, Roeder testified that he admired Shannon and had visited her in prison about two dozen times. After Roeder was found guilty in 2010, Shannon issued a statement of support from prison.

“Abortionists are killed because they are serial murderers of innocent children who must be stopped, and they will continue to be stopped…,” Shannon wrote in an e-mail to Leach, the Iowa anti-abortion activist. “May God bless Scott for his faithfulness and brave actions and stand.”

Talk like that has abortion-rights advocates convinced that Shannon will continue to encourage others to commit violence against doctors now that she’s out of prison.

“Why would she follow the restrictions of her release now when she so flagrantly violated the law and attempted to commit murder before?” Spillar said. “Even from prison, she kept inciting more violence.”

Shelley Shannon, second from left, who was convicted of shooting a Kansas abortion doctor, leaves federal court in Portland, Ore., in December 1994. Associated Press

Source: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article221194600.html?fbclid=IwAR0v61V2yqF0BdvKsDV_k2qYk1jwBBO1UrFoEWMFdTAa2r4UPvQ7_AmDHQE

 

November 9, 2018

Republican Voters Just Handed the U.S. Senate More Control Over the Future of ‘Roe’

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

A judicial storm is brewing.

Changes in the U.S. Senate make the end of Roe ever so slightly more likely now than it was before the election.
Zach Gibson/Getty Images

There was so much change to celebrate on Election Day: the Democratic takeover of the House and several state governments, the historic firsts in all of the women of color elected to state and national office, and the voting rights advances in many jurisdictions. But, there was one thing that remained constant on Tuesday, or even took a step backward—abortion rights, which are hanging by a very old and precarious thread.

Voters passed anti-abortion constitutional amendments in Alabama and West Virginia this week. These were major disappointments and, especially once West Virginia takes action to ban public funding for abortion, will have serious effects on abortion access. But neither of these developments takes either of those states closer to actually banning abortion. That will only happen when Roe is overruled, which with the changes in the U.S. Senate, is ever so slightly more likely now than it was before the election.

As everyone knows, with the addition of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, conservatives hold a 5-4 majority. It’s no secret that this new majority could, if the right case comes along, result in severely cutting back or even overturning Roe v. Wade. Since the Supreme Court wasn’t on the ballot, nothing that happened Election Day changed this balance.

What did change, though, was the Senate. Not who controls the Senate—the Republicans controlled the Senate before the election and will continue to control the Senate after the election. Rather, what changed was by how much. Right now, three races are still undecided, but we know for sure that the Republicans hold 51 seats. The Democrats failed to pick up seats they had been eyeing in Texas or Tennessee, and they lost seats in North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri. The only Democratic gain was in Nevada.

The bad news for Democrats is that the three seats where results aren’t final look tough. The Republican candidate is ahead in Arizona and Florida, and the third state is Mississippi, which has a runoff next month. It is very likely that the final tally for the next Senate will be that the Republicans hold an eight-seat margin: 54 to 46.

So why does this change matter? The margin makes a difference because Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are already at the age that many Americans are long retired. Those two liberal abortion-rights supporters are 85 and 80, respectively. Much to liberals’ chagrin, they aren’t going to be on the Court forever. (Just this morning, Justice Ginsburg landed in the hospital after reportedly fracturing her ribs during a fall.) And when they retire or when they pass away in office, the Senate has the constitutional power to confirm whoever is nominated to replace them.

If one of them leaves the Court over the next two years, President Trump will have the authority to nominate a successor. With a 54-46 Republican controlled Senate, if that’s what it winds up being, the chances of blocking a sixth conservative from the Court are somewhere between slim and impossible. After all, if Brett Kavanaugh can be confirmed when the Republicans had only a two-seat majority, another conservative justice will easily be confirmed with an eight-seat majority.

This majority would also give “moderate” Republican senators in purple states, like Susan Collins in Maine or Cory Gardner in Colorado, more freedom to vote against a Trump nominee. These Senators and any others like them won’t face the same pressure from their party because their votes matter less. Without that pressure, they could vote against the nominee to try to convince their constituents that they are more moderate than they actually are in the run-up to their re-election campaigns in 2020.

Where the election this week gets even more consequential is after Trump’s first term is over. Let’s say these two justices survive the remaining two years of Trump’s first term. If President Trump wins re-election in 2020, he will be president through ages 91 and 86 for Ginsburg and Breyer. There’s almost no chance they can both stay on the court that long. The Democrats’ only hope in that scenario is being able to stop the nominee in the Senate, but the Democrats’ chances of winning the Senate back in 2020, when they have a much more favorable map, got that much harder this week. They now have to pick up a net of five seats in that election. If they don’t do that, which seems unlikely if Trump wins again, a second-term President Trump could potentially add another two justices to the Court.

Even if Trump is a one-term president, a Democratic president probably needs a Democratic Senate to get a new justice on the Court. After the Merrick Garland debacle and the Brett Kavanaugh dumpster fire, no one would be surprised if a Republican-controlled Senate refuses to confirm a Democratic nominee at all, no matter if nominated in the first or last year of the presidency. This would leave the five-justice conservative majority, with only three or possibly two liberal justices as a check.

And that’s just the Supreme Court. With a larger GOP majority in the Senate, President Trump will be able to continue to, as he has been doing with much success so far, pack the lower federal courts with young right-wing judges with no check whatsoever. These lower court judges will be the first to address state-level abortion restrictions and, with the conservatives Trump has already put on these courts, they are more likely to allow states to restrict abortion. When this happens, the Supreme Court doesn’t even have to get involved. It just has to allow these lower court decisions to stand, and abortion rights will suffer without the Kavanaugh court even touching the case.

Not all is lost though. There is some good news about abortion from this election. Oregon voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would ban public abortion funding. There are now 14 states where Democrats control the governor’s office and both chambers of the legislature, and four fewer states where Republicans do. This should prevent anti-abortion legislation in the latter states and maybe even mean proactive abortion rights legislation in the former. And on the national level, a Democratic House of Representatives means there will be no anti-abortion legislation from Congress for the next two years.

These are definitely reasons to celebrate this week. But not without recognizing the brewing storm clouds from the increased Republican majority in the Senate.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/11/08/republican-voters-just-handed-the-u-s-senate-more-control-over-the-future-of-roe/

 

November 7, 2018

Google Maps lead women to fake abortion clinics

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

British women seeking an abortion are being directed by Google to centres that try and persuade them not to have a termination, a Sunday Telegraph investigation has found.

Search results for abortion clinics across the country suggest addresses and phone numbers to make appointments at “pregnancy crisis centres”, which are often linked to religious organisations, across England, Scotland and Wales.

One link directing women to a Pentecostal church in Llanelli, Wales has been taken down after the church was contacted by this newspaper. Another centre linked to the same church remains on Google Maps.

Other centres also appear in searches for clinics in Aberdeen, Loughborough, Bridgend, Burgess Gate and Horsham.

The trend appears to have come from the United States, where a network of centres, funded by private donors and religious organisations, are increasingly using technology to target women looking for medical help in order to further the pro-life cause.

When a business requests to be listed on Google the owners will be asked which category their service fits into and which search terms they want their website to come up for.

We found pro-life centres had categorised themselves as abortion clinics to appear on Maps. Their websites are expertly peppered with keywords and phrases like “abortion advice” and “abortion help” and the names of legitimate clinics to appear higher in Google’s search engine.

The Sunday Telegraph also found more than 50 pregnancy crisis centres that appeared as abortion clinics on the digital map in the US.

Many websites give the impression they offer terminations, but several are linked to adoption agencies and will try to convince women to carry their children to full term.

Katherine O’Brien, head of media and policy research at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said it could become more common in Britain. “Pro-life organisations in the UK see what works in the US and then they adopt those tactics,” she said.

“I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of this activity taking place online because as we’ve seen, it has been very effective in America.”

Ms O’Brien called on search engines to do the “morally right thing” and make a clear distinction between real abortion providers and the crisis pregnancy centres.

She said: “They tell women completely inaccurate, scientific nonsense, that having an abortion will cause breast cancer, can lead to eating disorders, will leave them unable to love or look after their current children.”

This clinic to someone searching for a nearby abortion service in California CREDIT: MARGI MURPHY


The actual “clinic” is a room where volunteers suggest women consider adoption and warn about the dangers of abortion procedures, while offering free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds CREDIT:MARGI MURPHY

Bill Chapman, senior pastor of Myrtle House Elim Church in Llanelli, which has since removed the crisis pregnancy centre’s Google Maps listing, said it had been closed for a decade.

“The centre’s core aim was to support women and their partners with the challenges associated with unplanned pregnancy – helping them to weigh up all the options and make an informed decision, while supporting them at all stages of the process, regardless of the outcome,” he said.

A centre in Loughborough also founded by Elim, a national network of Pentecostal churches, is still active. Olivia Amartey, Elim’s executive director, said the service was “small and low-key”, did not describe itself as an abortion clinic on its website, and saw between three and six clients each year on average.

“It is not the centre’s policy to persuade anyone to keep an unwanted baby, but simply to provide a listening service and support for those who are in crisis, struggling, or need a safe place to talk.

“In the case of an unplanned pregnancy the centre’s clear policy is to always offer a non-directive listening and support service, enabling clients to make their own informed choice after having taken the time to explore the options available,” she said.

Emily Loen, director of campaigns at the Abortion Access Hackathon, which uses technology to help abortion providers and pro-choice organisations, said search engines were behaving in a “negligent” way.

“They need to have teams to work on this specific issue, because it really is affecting people’s health across the country,” she said.

“They have a responsibility to have a neutral website that isn’t easily manipulated – it doesn’t bode well for their service if people can just manipulate the results.”

Accidentally attending one of the clinics, which are often staffed by volunteers with minimal qualifications, can leave women feeling confused, traumatised and guilty, as well as delaying their access to qualified medical care, campaigners said.

In one instance a centre Options For Pregnancy tried to book a Telegraph reporter who called to ask whether they offered abortion, into a “consultation” at Alpha Pregnancy Center, claiming that it was best to visit a “clinic” before “going ahead with a very expensive abortion”.

Upon attending the clinic, the reporter would get a free pregnancy test and ultrasound “to hear the baby’s heartbeat”.

Abortions cost between $500 and $1000, although some are covered by medical insurance.

The employee said getting a free ultrasound and pregnancy test would drive down costs if a woman did eventually decided to terminate a pregnancy.

Several US states require a woman to undergo an ultrasound before they can have an abortion, though California is not one of them.

They sent messages to the reporter two days later to follow up on the appointment, asking “how you are doing lately in the pregnancy?”

Almost all legitimate clinics cover pregnancy tests and ultrasounds in the total cost and would not accept a test that was taken by another clinic.

A number of the websites for the fake clinics include pictures of families and women with babies and in one example the clinic had laid out children’s toys in the waiting room.

A Google spokesman said: “We work hard to surface business results that are relevant, accurate, and help users find what they’re looking for.

“If someone believes a business on Google is misrepresenting itself or its services, they can report the listing for correction or removal. We address issues flagged for us as quickly as possible.”

Pro-life groups defended the centres. A spokeswoman for the UK-based society for the protection of unborn children said: “Women facing crisis pregnancies are typically in a state of panic and may make all sorts of searches when trying to think what to do.

“Abortion is a path that many women feel is their only option and it can only be right that they learn that alternatives are available – society is doing a grave disservice to women otherwise. If crisis pregnancy clinics are offering help and more choice when women are considering abortion, it is difficult to understand why those who call themselves pro-choice would object to it.”

Nola Leach, chief executive of Christian Action Research and Education, said the centres do “invaluable work” and “help to counter the narrative that when faced with a crisis pregnancyabortion is the only option”.

“Clearly, crisis pregnancy centres have a duty not to exert unfair pressure on women and advice given should always be accurate and sensitive,” she added.

“The centres list all the options available to women so that the women themselves can make up their own minds about what to do next. They also have great links to other support services if the woman decides she would like to keep the baby or place it for adoption.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/11/04/google-maps-lead-women-fake-abortion-clinics/?fbclid=IwAR2rDF4rCAQ-cv9DFtmTloCFPISrZ0o8rm-NWkDKIohN8TYD7sac76621vA

 

November 6, 2018

Gavel Drop: Before Election Day, a Flurry of Action on Voting Lawsuits

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

Some Native American voters in North Dakota are likely to be disenfranchised at the ballot box tomorrow.

In the days before Election Day, courts around the country have been ruling on voter identification measures that may be a factor in Election Day outcomes.

Voting Rights

A federal judge last Thursday declined to issue an injunction in a lawsuit filed by Native Americans that challenges a North Dakota voter ID law they say disenfranchises them. The law requires residents in North Dakota to present identification with a current street address in order to vote, but Native Americans living on reservations mostly rely on P.O. boxes. Now thousands of Native Americans might not be able to votetomorrow all because North Dakota Republicans don’t want them to.

Now, some better news. A Missouri appeals court last week revived a 2017 lawsuit challenging the state’s voter ID law. The lawsuit, which was previously dismissed, claimed the state failed to provide adequate public education and funding regarding the new photo ID requirements. A separate ruling earlier this month struck down portions of the law that required voters without a photo ID to provide signed affidavits attesting to their identities.

In another win against voter suppression, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal brought by Pennsylvania Republicans challenging the state’s new congressional district map, which replaced the gerrymandered map drawn by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature back in 2011. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled earlier this year that the map was unconstitutional and needed to be replaced because it was drawn to give an advantage to one party over the other.

And finally, Ohio voters kicked off registered voting rolls will be able to cast a provisional ballot tomorrow. A federal appeals court last week ordered the state to count provisional ballots in Tuesday’s midterm elections for individuals who were purged from the rolls between 2011 and 2015 as long as they live in the same county where they were last registered. So if this is you, get to the polls!

Actually, this goes for everyone. If you haven’t already taken advantage of early voting—and haven’t been stripped of the right to vote—get to the polls. And take a friend.

Abortion

Just a month into Brett Kavanaugh’s tenure at the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), a second state has turned to the court in hopes of stripping pregnant people of their reproductive rights and upending Roe v. Wade. The state of Alabama has announced its intent to ask SCOTUS to review the state’s effort to ban the most commonly used second-trimester abortion procedure. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall asked the nation’s highest court last week to grant the state an additional 30 days to file its petition for review. The law, which bans dilation and evacuation procedures, was signed in 2016 by former Gov. Robert Bentley (R). A federal judge blocked the law as unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in August upheld the decision. This isn’t the first abortion rights challenge to potentially come before the newly formed conservative Supreme Court majority; the court is currently deciding whether to hear arguments over a separate anti-abortion law in Indiana.

Courts

Voters in Alabama this week will get to decide if they miss having someone like former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore presiding over the state’s highest court. Republican Tom Parker, one of Moore’s former aides and current associate justice on the Alabama Supreme Court, is running for Moore’s old seat as chief justice. Parker holds many of the same terrible views as Moore—nostalgia for the Confederacy, opposition to same-sex marriage, the desire to jail pregnant people who terminate pregnancies—you know, the usual. While Alabama voters ultimately rejected the U.S. Senate candidacy of Moore—who was accused of sexually assaulting young teenagers—they did so just barely. With no polling data available and in an election where abortion rights are literally on the ballot, it’ll be interesting to see what motivates voters this time around.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/11/05/gavel-drop-before-election-day-a-flurry-voting-lawsuits/

 

November 5, 2018

4 Women on Having Abortions Before They Were Legal

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

When Donald Trump was asked about abortion access in a November 13 interview with 60 Minutes, he said that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, women seeking abortions will simply “have to go to another state.” His vice-president-elect, Mike Pence, was even more blunt. Speaking at a campaign event in July, he told supporters, “We’ll see Roe v. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.”

Whether or not Trump and Pence will take away a woman’s legal right to get an abortion remains to be seen, but it’s clear that neither appreciates the implications of banning the procedure. In fact, outlawing abortion doesn’t actually reduce the abortion rate — in countries were abortion is illegal, the number of abortions per woman is slightly higher. Instead, it forces women to seek out secretive, unsafe, unregulated abortions and in some cases to pay hundreds of dollars to get them. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, only women of means — women who can afford to “go to another state” — will be able to get an abortion. In many states, women’s health care will look much as it did before 1973.

Which means that the stories told in Back Rooms: Voices From the Illegal Abortion Era will be depressingly apt. Joanne Michaels, a New York–based journalist and publisher, decided to release an updated, revised edition of the book — which was written by Ellen Messer and Kathryn May and originally published in 1988 — months before the election. But under the Trump administration, the stories it contains will serve to remind readers what it was like to get an abortion in “the bad old days.” Below are four excerpts from Back Rooms, which is available upon mail-in request.*

***
Caroline, 44, on her abortion in 1963:

When it happened, I knew right away that I was pregnant. It was the summer between my junior and senior year of college. I didn’t really know what to do. I knew, though, that having a baby would ruin my whole life.

I don’t know when I really started to think about an abortion. I had earlier helped a friend get an abortion. It had seemed to be a fairly easy thing to do. [But] things at that time in Cleveland were very tight. It was 1963, and when I followed up on the few leads there were, it seemed that it was absolutely the worst possible time in about five years to have an abortion in Cleveland. I finally located an abortionist in Youngstown, Ohio. It was going to cost $100.

This so-called doctor — this man who called himself a doctor — had two businesses. He was a bookie and he was an abortionist. He was an elderly man in a ramshackle little house in a disreputable, shabby section of Youngstown. It in no way fit my image of a doctor’s house and office. But that was my only option, and I was very desperate to go through with it. He had a room with a chair and stirrups set up. I went in and it was all very, very secretive. I do know that when I finally aborted I was alone in my room at the dormitory at school. I went through at least twelve hours of labor alone in my room. It was more terrible than I ever imagined. I was timing the contractions and I just didn’t think I could bear any more. I didn’t feel I could cry out for help, and I just remember thinking, I’m going to get through this.

I know it went on for at least twelve hours. I remember noticing that the contractions were getting more frequent, and then there was a lot of blood and there was a fetus. I was really beside myself, and terrified. I didn’t know what to do. There was more blood than I ever imagined. I was terrified of someone discovering me, of being arrested.

I managed to get through that night and morning. Somehow I thought then it would be over, but it wasn’t over. I kept hemorrhaging and it just wouldn’t stop. It went on for days and days and I didn’t know what to do. I had become pregnant in August, and it was close to Thanksgiving, and I continued to bleed. When I finally saw [a] doctor, I got really frightened. He was so appalled at my condition that he said, “Do you realize you could’ve killed yourself?”

Emily, 50, on her abortion in 1955:

It was the end of 1955. I was living in Philadelphia, alone in a basement apartment. I was working part-time in Horn & Hardart to support myself. I was going to high school at night to get a diploma to qualify for college. I was, I guess, 20. I was having a relationship with a young man — my first actual experience with a man — and I found myself pregnant. I knew that I could not take care of a child. I knew that I was frightened and alone and impoverished. I had dreams about my life, so there was absolutely no way that I would give up what I was going to become. I didn’t feel I could take care of a child — I was a baby myself.

At that time it was impossible to get an abortion in Philadelphia because there had been a recent tragedy. The daughter of an upper-middle-class family had just died on the abortionist’s table. Everyone was terrified. There was absolutely nothing to be done. [So] I went to New York looking for an abortionist. I happened to bump into someone on the street that I had gone to high school with, so I asked her if she knew of an abortionist, not for me, of course, but for my friend. She had a friend who was going to Cuba to have an abortion, and maybe my friend wanted to go with her friend. So I did.

I went to the abortionist with her. She had hers first, and I heard her screaming and I was absolutely terrified. I said I simply did not want to go through that without some medication, and they did give it to me. I was sure that I was never going to wake up again.

I cannot believe that a 16- or 17-year-old knows how to raise a child — I think babies deserve better. I don’t have feelings of admiration for these young kids who decide to keep their babies, I really don’t. They can only raise miserable children, and I feel bad about that. They can have an abortion now without the pain and fear that I had. They don’t know what it was like before, and what it might be like if it’s taken away. They just don’t know what it was like.

Ann, 60, on her abortions in the late 1950s:

I had two illegal abortions. The first was in 1956 when I was 25. I had lived with my husband for about two years before we went to Europe, and we got married because we wanted to go to Europe. In those days, it was not common for unmarried people to travel together. I had gotten pregnant after we were married just a few months. My husband wasn’t opposed to keeping the child, but you know who the burden would have fallen on. It would have changed my life more than his.

I don’t know how, but we found out about a place in Germany. It was a maternity hospital. We had to give the doctor $300 in cash, which in those days was a lot of money. He pretended I was bleeding and told a nurse it was an emergency and performed a D&C. I was in the hospital for five days and was treated quite well. It was just that: $300 not to have a child.

Then, when we got back to New York, about two or three years later I got pregnant again. I found out through a friend about a doctor in West New York, New Jersey. It was hard at the time to find someone who would perform an abortion. It was all very secretive, like they had a code name “Charlie” and you had to call at a certain time on a certain day. It was really bizarre that in New York it was more difficult to find somebody than it was in Europe.

I remember going to this doctor’s office on a Saturday, and the office was empty and he didn’t use any anesthesia. It was very painful, but in a way I was lucky because the woman who told me about him had to have an abortion a few months later, and she had all kinds of terrible complications from it. So even though I had two abortions, I think I was really lucky not having any side effects. It sounds really simple now, but it was not simple. It was like I wasn’t being allowed to decide my own future, and that seemed really important to me — that I could decide when I wanted to have a child.

Lila, on her illegal abortion:

I had been dating Joseph almost a year — I met him in the spring of my freshman year, and I was still dating him in the fall. He was a Catholic also, and black Catholics were really hard to find. Joseph and I had gone to dinner. We started fooling around and fell into bed. We fell into his bed and had sex, and my period did not come the next time.

I was determined not to have the baby. Joseph told me that it was my choice because he was ready to get married. I liked the guy, but I wasn’t ready. I wanted to finish my education. I didn’t want to be a married student with a baby trying to finish up college for two years. I really couldn’t imagine having a baby by this guy. I decided to ask my stepmother in Des Moines if she could help me. I told my stepmother I was pregnant and that I didn’t want to have the baby, and she says, “Fine, I’ll call you back.” In two hours she called me back. She said, “Come to Des Moines this weekend.” I said, “How much will it be?” and I think she said $100. I felt nothing.

It was a kitchen table, coat-hanger abortion. It took maybe six minutes. I got on the kitchen table. I think my stepmother gave me a drink of brandy or something, and she said, “Now this may hurt a little bit.” She held my hand and this woman stuck a piece of coat hanger into my vagina. And then my stepmother said, “Okay, now get dressed.” And what you were supposed to do was leave that in there until you started to abort. I remember walking out with this coat hanger between my legs.

That evening I started bleeding and I think I was feeling cramps. I got up very early in the morning and went to the bathroom, and there was just this passage of blood and a clot that was slightly bigger than the clots I usually passed during my menstrual period. I realized that that was the fetus. The next month my period came on time.

I think it was rarer for black women to have chosen to have an abortion back in the bad old days. One reason people cite is that having a child enhanced a black woman’s self-esteem. I would suggest that another reason is because many black women didn’t know where to find one. If it was difficult for a white woman to find one, it was impossible for a black woman to find one, especially a poor black woman.

Source: https://www.thecut.com/2016/11/4-women-on-getting-an-abortion-before-roe-v-wade.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=thecut&fbclid=IwAR2sm3HX1vd3VAkCmvoFx2EO3v-5FgfSXwWpjz4bYf1TFUOnqohSRM8di7Q

 

November 3, 2018

Oregon’s Anti-Choice Ballot Measure Is Dangerous and Discriminatory

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

Oregon’s Measure 106 is on the wrong side of history, and must not be allowed to pass. Not in Oregon. Not now. Not ever.

Oregon voters on November 6 will decide if new abortion care restrictions will be put into place in the pro-choice state.
Shutterstock

Constitutional amendments should protect our rights and liberties, not restrict them. But restricting rights—namely those of people with the capacity to become pregnant—is exactly what Oregon’s Measure 106 purports to do.

This ballot measure would amend the state constitution to require Oregon, in its publicfunding of health care, to discriminate against only one medical procedure: abortion.

Oregon is one of only 17 states to have expanded its Medicaid program to cover abortion care; it’s also one of the 28 statesthat allow abortion coverage in insurance plans for public employees. Last year, state lawmakers passed the Reproductive Health Equity Act, which ensures access to abortion care for all people in Oregon—with no out-of-pocket costs—regardless of their insurance provider, gender identity, or immigration status. At a time when liberty is under attack by our own federal government, it is up to states like Oregon to continue charting the path forward, not to retreat.

Those for Measure 106 argue that the measure is justified because it only prohibits funding for abortions that are “elective” rather than “medically necessary,” as though the decision to have an abortion is just like the decision to undergo teeth whitening, or Botox, or a facelift. Their argument goes something like this: If abortion is a “choice,” shouldn’t taxpayers be able to “choose” whether to fund it?

Even looking beyond the co-optation of the term “choice,” this argument falls flat. Because abortion isn’t merely a choice.

Consider those who lack access to basic reproductive health care, such as contraception and medically accurate sex education. Or those who do not have adequate housing or a job that pays a living wage (much less one that offers paid parental leave). Or—considering that nearly 60 percent of women who have abortions are parents—think about those who are struggling to care for the children they already have. Or victims of domestic violence, for whom unintended pregnancies could lead to further violence and forever tether them to their abusers. For these women and so many others, an abortion may not be medically necessary, but it surely isn’t “elective” either. For these women, access to abortion is a matter of survival.

In fact, abortion is never really “elective,” even for those who simply don’t want a child or have things they want to accomplish before becoming a parent. Truly elective procedures are those for which the consequences of forgoing them would be relatively inconsequential. Carrying a pregnancy to term has significant physical, emotional, social, and economic consequences.

To characterize abortion as an “elective” procedure is to deny the lived experiences of all women, and particularly young women, low-income women, and women of color. The truth is that one in four womenin the United States will have an abortion by the age of 45—and this includes women who have a religious or moral objection to abortion.

Seeing abortion care as “elective” makes it easier to ignore those who would be harmed by Measure 106. This includes the estimated 250,000 women of reproductive age who receive health care through Oregon’s Medicaid program; or the thousands of teachers, nurses, firefighters, city workers, and other public service members who receive health care through state insurance plans; or the countless others who would be affected by abortion being further stigmatized and made inaccessible.

It also makes it easier for state lawmakers to assert power over pregnant people’s bodies more generally. Doing so diminishes people’s experiences, and minimizes what is at stake when we push abortion care out of reach. And if we cannot talk about the reality in which abortion happens, we can’t begin to address the many forms of oppression that lead to one in four women needing abortion care in the first place.

Abortion is not like plastic surgery. Abortion is essential health care. It is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution; international law recognizes abortion, including the means by which to access it, as a basic human right. Yet this right means nothing if it is only available to the privileged.

People who seek abortion care, and those who have had abortions, are unique, multifaceted individuals; they share only a singular decision for their bodies, their futures, and their reproductive health.

Measure 106 is on the wrong side of history, and must not be allowed to pass. Not in Oregon. Not now. Not ever.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/11/02/oregons-anti-choice-ballot-measure-is-dangerous-and-discriminatory/

 

November 1, 2018

Abortion Restrictions Are on the Ballot in 3 States This Election

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

In less than two weeks, voters in three states will weigh in on measures that are designed to restrict access to abortion and take away a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health care.

In West Virginia and Oregon, voters will consider ballot proposals that could immediately ban state Medicaid insurance coverage for abortion, making this essential reproductive health care inaccessible for low-income women. In Alabama, politicians are attempting to enshrine, via ballot, anti-abortion rhetoric in the state constitution and assign legal rights to fetuses.

What’s worse, the measures in West Virginia and Alabama would exclude the right to abortion from those states’ constitutions. This step, in combination with the fact that both states still have pre-Roebans criminalizing abortion on their books, could lead to abortion being completely outlawed should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and return the matter of the legality of abortion to the states. Not only would the Alabama measure lead to the criminalization of abortion, but it could also potentially outlaw certain forms of birth control as well once Roe’s protections are gone.

In other words, the proponents of these measures are trying to hoodwink voters into giving away their rights now and avoid the messy legislative battles sure to come in the wake of a Roe reversal.

Indeed all three proposals are part of a broader strategy by the anti-abortion movement to test just how far it can go in restricting reproductive health care, and they come at a time when the future of legal abortion in the United States is at unprecedented risk. By some estimates, nearly half the states would either outlaw abortion entirely or severely restrict it should the Supreme Court overturn or gut Roe.

Four states have so-called “trigger laws” on the books that would immediately outlaw abortion if the courts allow it. Another nine states, including West Virginia and Alabama, have pre-Roe laws still in place that would criminalize women, doctors, or both for abortion. And this doesn’t include other state legislatures controlled by anti-abortion politicians, who since 2011, have passed more than 400 restrictions designed to put abortion care out of reach.

The consequences of abortion restrictions fall hardest on women of color, poor communities, rural women, LGBTQ individuals, and young people. A woman’s ability to decide when and whether to become a parent should never be tied to how much money she makes, how she is insured, or where she lives. Anti-abortion politicians’ relentless attempts to restrict abortion care will only result in more women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, either because they can’t afford to pay for their procedure out of pocket or because clinics in their communities have closed.

For years, the ACLU and our state affiliates have been fighting these restrictions in the courts and in state legislatures. But this election season, we’re working hard to defeat these initiatives at the ballot box. In West Virginia, the ACLU is working with a strong coalition on the ground to ensure people Vote Against Amendment 1; the ACLU of Oregon is a founding member of the No Cuts to Carecampaign in Oregon to tell people to vote No on Measure 106; and the ACLU of Alabama is a member of the Alabama for Healthy Families campaign, which urges people to “Vote No on Amendment 2.”

While we continue to push back against these unjust laws, it’s up to all of us to make our voices heard at the polls this year, not just in Alabama, West Virginia, and Oregon, but across the country. That’s why we’re asking you to vote like your rights depend on it — because they do.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/abortion-restrictions-are-ballot-3-states-election?fbclid=IwAR1Fr5mD9yoRyUvV87mGOcTZoTqKhQil18j0XqinaFE81EDuSixN_fIrtAA

 

October 31, 2018

New Zealand pro-choice campaigners hail move towards abortion law reform

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

Newly released review sets out way to make abortion a health rather than criminal matter

Andrew Little, New Zealand’s justice minister, is overseeing changes to abortion laws. Photograph: Pool/Getty Images

Pro-choice advocates in New Zealand have welcomed a law review exploring ways to decriminalise abortion and treat it as a health issue instead.

Advocates called the report “amazing” and said its recommendations were long overdue.

The review recommends three alternative approaches to abortion law. The first – called model A and favoured by pro-choice campaigners – would remove all specific regulation of abortion and see it treated like any other health service. A further two options include a “statutory test” that would require a health professional to be convinced an abortion “is appropriate”.

Terry Bellamak, director of ALRANZ Abortion Rights Aotearoa, said model A was the only option that would make accessing abortion a more streamlined and dignified experience for women, many of whom found the existing system “degrading”.

“Model A is clearly superior because it treats abortion as a health issue like any other, and does not place unnecessary barriers between pregnant people and abortion care,” Bellamak said.

The review found health practitioners and professional bodies were “almost unanimous” in their support for model A.

Under New Zealand law, abortion is a crime and legal only in cases of incest, “mental subnormality” or foetal abnormality, or where the physical or mental health of the mother is at serious risk. Other factors that may be taken into consideration but are not grounds in themselves include “sexual violation” and “extremes of age”.

The justice minister, Andrew Little, said on Friday the legislation governing abortion was “outdated” and New Zealand needed to follow reforms elsewhere such as Ireland and the Australian state of Queensland in making abortion easier to access.

Compared with other countries New Zealand women face long delays in obtaining abortions. Little said it was “disturbing” to read of women being forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies.

In England and Wales in 2017, 77% of abortions were carried out before 10 weeks, the safest period in which to terminate, while in New Zealand in the same year only 59% of abortions met that criterion.

A 2009 study found New Zealand women were waiting an average of 25 days for an abortion.

Opposition to the government’s reform plans was “a certainty”, said Little, but starting the debate was also necessary for women’s wellbeing. “It is a very sensitive issue and it does tend to generate a fairly polarising debate, and it’s a conscious issue for MPs and even within parties there are very different views,” Little said.

“But I think it is very timely to look at the law and ask ourselves whether it is fit for the 21st century. Other countries have been doing it [reform] and are doing it, and I think it’s right for New Zealand to be doing it now.”

Other reforms suggested by the review include allowing women to access abortion services directly rather than being referred by a doctor, removing restrictions on who can perform abortions and where, and removing the requirement for two “certifying consultants” to approve it.

Despite the restrictions, abortion is common in New Zealand but rates have been steadily declining for more than 10 years, which is thought to be due to wider use of long-term contraceptives and significantly fewer teenage pregnancies.

International evidence suggests restrictive abortion laws do not reduce the number of abortions taking place but increase the proportion that are unsafe, the report states.

In countries with highly restrictive abortion laws the risks associated with illegal abortions are high. The World Health Organization estimates 47,000 woman die each year from unsafe abortions, with a further five million suffering permanent disability.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/26/new-zealand-pro-choice-campaigners-hail-move-towards-abortion-law-reform?fbclid=IwAR3ppmJj4Gq-Oq-Yq5IQD80-WveJjG1Z0FNgB7SjI1i1UQPFsl7LCVr-tAw

 

October 29, 2018

THE LAST CLINICS STANDING: These six states show how the Supreme Court could end abortion access without overruling Roe v. Wade

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

These six states show how the Supreme Court could end abortion access without overruling Roe v. Wade

Following Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, there was much discussion about the future of reproductive rights in the United States and whether his appointment could result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. While that prospect remains a real threat, abortion could be made as good as illegal for millions of people long before that happens.

In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down abortion restrictions that would have closed most abortion clinics in Texas. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in that case. With Kavanaugh confirmed as his replacement, the court could use the next abortion-rights case to eviscerate abortion access without explicitly overruling Roe.

Ever since Roe was decided in 1973, state legislatures have been chipping away at abortion access, passing more than 1,100 restrictions. They include waiting periods, anti-abortion counseling mandates, bans on the types of procedure used, and forced ultrasounds. And then there are the TRAP laws — Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers — that require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals or require clinics that provide safe, outpatient care to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers.

The TRAP requirements are difficult — in some cases impossible — to meet. Many hospitals simply won’t provide admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions due to anti-abortion bias and stigma. Others require doctors to admit a certain number of patients at the hospital each year, but because abortion is such a safe procedure, abortion providers can’t meet that threshold.

Ambulatory surgical centers are far more complex and expensive than what is necessary to provide a safe abortion, and no other comparable medical procedure is subject to such requirements.

24 states impose medically unnecessary restrictions to accessing abortion care

Proponents of TRAP laws claim that they are intended to protect women’s health, but major medical associations oppose the requirements, saying they actually jeopardize women’s health by delaying and obstructing access to abortion care.

In 2016, the Supreme Court agreed that the laws do not benefit women but rather impose unnecessary obstacles. In a decision called Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court struck down a TRAP law in Texas that would have required abortion providers to have admitting privileges and meet the requirements of ambulatory surgical centers.

The court found that there was no evidence that that the measures protected women’s health. There was, however, overwhelming evidence of the burden they imposed on women by forcing three-quarters of clinics around the state to close, leaving millions of women without access to abortion.

In a dangerous preview of what may lie ahead, judges on lower courts who disagree with Roe v. Wade, are already starting to ignore the Whole Woman’s Health ruling and uphold laws nearly identical to the one in Texas, forcing more clinics to close. It happened in Arkansas, where the state went down to a single clinic for a period this summer when a federal appeals court lifted an injunction against a TRAP law that was very similar to Texas’s. And it’s what happened just last month in Missouri and Louisiana, both of which are going down to one clinic each because appeals courts for those states have flouted the Supreme Court’s decision and allowed TRAP laws there to stand.

Before those decisions, as of May 2017, there were already six states that had only one abortion clinic remaining. Soon, that number could increase to at least eight. And, if the Supreme Court gives the green light, some states may have no abortion clinics left in the not-so-distant future.

Below, we look at just some of the states that are down to a single clinic or have seen a precipitous reduction in the number of clinics over the past 25 years because of abortion restrictions. Sadly, this is likely what more and more of the country may start to look like.

Decline in Arkansas Abortion Clinics - 8 in 1992, 3 in 2018

In 1992, Arkansas had eight abortion clinics. Today it has three. And, depending on how a federal appeals court rules in a pending case, it could soon have only one.

That is what happened over the summer, when a federal appeals court allowed a law virtually identical to the one struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016 to take effect. The Arkansas decision made medication abortion (aka abortion with pills) unavailable in the entire state by requiring clinics that provide the service to have an agreement with OB-GYNs who have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. (Recall this is the same type of law that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional just two years ago.) And that could happen again — this time on a permanent basis — if the appeals court rules in favor of the state once more.

In addition, we have challenged four other restrictions passed by the Arkansas Legislature, all of which have been blocked by a federal trial court. But the state has appealed. If the state prevails, these laws would act as an effective bar to having an abortion anywhere in the state. Arkansas also requires anti-abortion counseling, parental consent, and a 48-hour waiting period. It also bans abortions at 20 weeks. Counseling must be provided in person and take place before the waiting period begins, necessitating two separate trips to one of the few clinics in the state.

Decline in Kentucky Abortion Clinics - 9 in 1992, 1 in 2018

In 1992, Kentucky had nine abortion clinics. Today it has one. The state has tried to use TRAP laws to shut down the single remaining clinic, but litigation has thus far blocked it from doing so. In September, a federal court held that the TRAP laws’ “scant medical benefits” were “far outweighed by the burden imposed on Kentucky women seeking abortions” and struck the laws down. However, the state has vowed to appeal. If the ruling stands, a second clinic is likely to begin offering abortion services.

But there’s more. Kentucky already bans abortion after 20 weeks, but this year the state passed a law effectively banning abortions after 15 weeks as well. We sued and the law is on hold. Women in Kentucky are also required to have a face-to-face consultation with a doctor at least 24 hours before an abortion. Women under 18 must get permission from a parent or a judge in order to have an abortion. And doctors must provide an ultrasound, narrate fetal development, and make the heartbeat audible regardless of whether the patient wants to hear it. We are challenging the ultrasound law in the courts, too.

Decline in Louisiana Abortion Clinics - 17 in 1992, 3 in 2018

Louisiana had 17 abortion clinics in 1992. Today it has three. And, due to a recent court ruling, it may soon only have one. That is because its clinic licensing law contains more than 1,000 medically unnecessary requirements, including an admitting privileges measure that is indistinguishable from the one struck down in Whole Woman’s Health. Yet the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ignored the clear and controlling precedent and allowed the law to go into effect.

In addition to establishing licensing hurdles that are almost impossible to overcome, the law forces women to undergo invasive examinations, makes doctors give their patients misleading or false information, and allows the government to collect and review the medical records of every woman who has an abortion in the state. Moreover, the state passed a bundle of abortion restrictions in 2016 that, among other things, tripled the time a woman had to wait to get an abortion — pushing women later into pregnancy — and banned the most common method of abortion in the second trimester.

Decline in Mississippi Abortion Clinics - 8 in 1992, 1 in 2018

In 1992, Mississippi had eight abortion clinics. Today it has one. From 1991 to 2014, the annual number of abortions in Mississippi declined by nearly two-thirds. The abortion rate in Mississippi is almost four times lower than the national rate, despite the state’s unintended and teen pregnancy rates being substantially higher than the national average.

Mississippi has some of the most stringent abortion laws in the country, and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has said, “Please rest assured that I also have not abandoned my hope of making Mississippi abortion-free.”

Until the measure was blocked in court, Mississippi required any physician associated with an abortion facility to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. It took eight months for the state to finally admit that there was no meaningful distinction between the Texas law that had been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and its own admitting privileges measure.

While several states have laws limiting the provision of abortion care to physicians, thereby preventing other qualified, licensed clinicians from offering this service, Mississippi takes it one step further by requiring abortion providers to be OB-GYNs. It is the only state to impose such a requirement.

In addition to its clinic shutdown laws, a woman must receive in-person, state-mandated counseling intended to discourage her from choosing an abortion, wait 24 hours before she can return to the clinic, and undergo an ultrasound before she can have the procedure. A woman under 18 must obtain written consent for her abortion from both parents or permission from a judge.

Mississippi was the first state in the nation to enact a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which was the earliest abortion ban in the country at the time it took effect. The state also has a “trigger law,” which is designed to ban abortion immediately should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.

Decline in Missouri Abortion Clinics - 12 in 1992, 1 in 2018

In 1992, Missouri had 12 abortion clinics. Last year it had one — until a federal district court enjoined its TRAP law, which allowed a second clinic to offer abortion services again. But now it has gone back down to one after a federal appeals court let two measures, virtually identical to the ones struck down in Texas, take effect in September.

Beyond its TRAP laws, Missouri requires state-directed counseling designed to discourage abortion that must be provided by the same doctor who will perform the abortion. Following the counseling, a woman needs to wait 72 hours before she can obtain the procedure. Because the counseling must be provided in person, she must make two separate trips to the clinic. And with so few clinics in Missouri, a trip to the clinic could be 300 miles away. That, in turn, requires additional time off of work and possibly extra childcare costs, given that the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers.

Decline in Ohio Abortion Clinics - 45 in 1992, 10 in 2018

In 1992, Ohio had 45 abortion clinics. Today it has 10.

First, the state required abortion providers to obtain a written transfer agreement with a local hospital. Then, it banned public hospitals from entering into such agreements with abortion clinics. Not satisfied with that Catch-22, the state also created an onerous process for abortion clinics to seek an exemption from the transfer agreement requirement and made the denial of a clinic’s application automatic if the Department of Health failed to act within 60 days. And while the statute only requires a clinic to have one backup physician in order to be exempted, the Department of Health demanded a showing of two, then three, and ultimately four backup physicians.

It is only due to court intervention that the sole remaining clinic in Dayton is open today, and several other clinics are also in jeopardy of shutting down because of these laws. Even the retirement of one backup doctor could force a clinic to close.

On top of these onerous measures, women must wait at least 24 hours after receiving in-person, biased counseling before having an abortion, requiring two trips to the clinic. Women under 18 must have a parent’s consent. Finally, women must undergo an ultrasound so that the provider can test for a fetal heartbeat.

* * *

Rather than improving women’s health and safety, abortion restrictions have been designed to harass, guilt, and shame women and push abortion care out of reach. Already, too many women live in places where Roe has been rendered meaningless. Whole Woman’s Health, if dutifully applied by the courts, would stem the tide of laws that have shuttered so many abortion clinics. But a newly constituted Supreme Court, and lower federal courts that have been stacked with judges who are hostile to abortion rights, portend a future in which broad swaths of the country will have little to no access to abortion – all while Roe remains “settled law” but exists in name only.

Source: https://www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom/abortion/last-clinics-standing?fbclid=IwAR3IWa0o72OSix7y1ZHxyuGcEEt5enOU-X6GvjXfTjGQAim4gwdGK63u3hc

 

October 27, 2018

The FDA Is Investigating Self-Managed Abortion Care Website

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

Anti-choice advocates, vowing to fight Aid Access, and are now considering advocating for Congress to intervene.

According to USDA guidelines, doctors must dispense mifepristone at clinics, medical offices, or hospitals.
Jarretera / Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating a website that recently began providing women in the United States with low-cost medication to cause early abortion at a relatively low cost.  The federal agency says that selling the pills online is illegal and breaks federal protocol, and anti-choice advocates are considering asking the U.S. Congress to step in as well.

The website Aid Access began selling drugs online this year, allowing people up to 10 weeks’ gestation to terminate their pregnancies for less than $100—one-fifth of the average cost of the same medication at a clinic.

Women in the United States are able to end first-trimester pregnancies at home with Mifeprex; also known as mifepristone, the drug prevents a pregnancy from continuing by blocking the hormone progesterone, dislodging an egg from the lining of the uterus. Another drug, misoprostol, “enhances contractions and helps to expel the products of conception from the uterus,” according to Aid Access.

The FDA has determined that Mifeprex, should only be “dispensed in certain health care settings, specifically, clinics, medical offices and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber. Mifepristone, including Mifeprex, for termination of pregnancy, is not legally available over the Internet,” the FDA said in an emailed statement to Rewire.News.

“The agency takes the allegations related to the sale of mifepristone in the U.S. through online distribution channels very seriously and is evaluating the allegations to assess potential violations of U.S. law,” the FDA said.

According to FDA guidelines, doctors must dispense mifepristone at clinics, medical offices, or hospitals. Aid Access uses a doctor to write prescriptions for the drug online, and distributes the drugs through the mail.

The FDA also posted a notice online warning consumers not to by Mifeprex over the internet “because you will bypass important safeguards designed to protect your health (and the health of others).” Drugs that are “purchased from foreign Internet sources are not the FDA-approved versions of the drugs, and they are not subject to FDA-regulated manufacturing controls or FDA inspection of manufacturing facilities,” the agency warned.

But not everyone agrees. Major medical organizations and physicians have argued that the drugs should be more widely available and are perfectly safe for home use. Experts have argued in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association that the limitation is not warranted, and medication abortion up to 10 weeks’ gestation is the safe, effective, and preferred method for terminating a pregnancy. Pharmacists can dispense the medications upon a doctor’s prescription in Australia and some provinces of Canada, the commentary said.

“This restriction might have made sense when mifepristone was first approved in 2000, given the limited safety data from the US at that time, But after 18 years of evidence of the drug’s safety, this is no longer needed. Canada recently approved mifepristone, and the drug is already available at pharmacies by prescription,” said Dr. Daniel Grossman, director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), a research center at the University of California, San Francisco.

Aid Access responded to questions about the investigation by referring Rewire.News to a recent publication by the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion research and policy institution, arguing that the FDA restrictions on mifepristone “are not justified.” It cites support for lifting restrictions from the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The “limits imposed on mifepristone are both burdensome on those seeking to access medication abortion and ineffective in addressing any risks associated with the medication,” the Guttmacher Institute said.

The founder of Aid Access, Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, has offered similar services in countries where abortion is illegal through her site Women on the Web. Aid Access reportedly launched in April and has since received thousands of requests. Gomperts was not made available for an interview with Rewire.News.

While medication abortion is generally available in the United States, access to abortion providers varies widely. Women in 27 large U.S. cities would have to travel more than 100 miles each way to access abortion services, according to ANSIRH research. Six states have just one abortion-providing facility.

Medication abortions have risen in recent years—from 6 percent of non-hospital abortions in 2001 to 31 percent in 2014. That is despite a decline in the overall rate of abortion: The abortion rate in 2014 was lower than it was when abortion became legal in 1973, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Anti-choice advocates have vowed to fight Aid Access’ work and are now considering advocating for Congress to intervene. Americans United for Life (AUL) President Catherine Glenn Foster said in a statement that the service is “reckless and irresponsible” because no ultrasound is performed, and thus it is not possible to know if the pregnancy is ectopic.  “Because Gomperts’ plan is dangerous to women’s health and safety, the act of sending unregulated prescription abortion pills through the mail should be the subject of federal regulation,” Foster said.

“Research has shown that women who know when their last period started are generally accurate at determining how far along they are in the pregnancy,” Grossman argued in response. “These medications are not thought to be effective to treat an ectopic pregnancy, but they won’t make the complications from an ectopic worse. Ectopic pregnancy is very rare—and apparently rarer among women seeking abortion compared to the general population. Most women with an ectopic will have unusual symptoms like pain or bleeding, and they should be advised to seek care.”

A spokesman for the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee did not respond to questions about whether the committee is considering an investigation.

AUL may already have an inside track at the FDA and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The department’s assistant secretary for public affairs is Charmaine Yoest, the former president of AUL.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/10/26/the-fda-is-investigating-self-managed-abortion-care-website/

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »