The woman stumbled into a public hospital late one night, her stomach turning as she approached the lobby. She was bleeding.

Dr. Damian Levy ushered her into a room. Like many of his patients at Hospital Alvarez in Buenos Aires, she was young and poor. At first, she refused to tell him why she was there.

Then she burst into a tearful confession. She had tried to perform her own abortion at home and used 40 tablets of the drug misoprostol — nearly three times the suggested dosage for inducing a miscarriage. She was worried that the hospital would report her to police.

In Argentina, and across much of Latin America, where edicts of the Catholic Church are often enshrined in law, elective abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancy is illegal.

Yet the laws are widely circumvented, and researchers are finding that the abortion rate in Latin America is far higher than it is in the U.S. and other places where the procedure is legal. In Argentina, where tensions between the church and secular society run especially high, the government estimates that between 370,000 and 522,000 abortions are performed every year, most of them illegal, very few of them prosecuted.

Driving the numbers are a growing group of activists dedicated to making abortion drugs accessible to the poor and doctors willing to stretch the rules. None of that is a secret to authorities or politicians, who rarely discuss the issue publicly.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014 asked adults in Argentina about their views on “abortion in all or most cases” and found that about 60% oppose legalization while 37% support it.

Argentina tries to appease both sides. It keeps abortion illegal — except in cases of rape or when a pregnancy poses a health risk — but allows it to continue anyway to meet the significant demand.

This tightrope act has made complications from abortion the leading cause of maternal death. The procedure is often performed without medical expertise, and the stigma and fear around it means many women wait longer into their pregnancies, when the risks are higher.

That leads to emergencies like the misoprostol overdose that Levy found himself dealing with.

“I have seen women take two, eight, 12 pills,” the doctor said. “Never 40.”

Levy immediately performed a surgical abortion. The woman survived.

In the twisted logic often employed to navigate the abortion law, he explained that she was in no danger of being turned into police for an illegal abortion, because using so many pills had put her health at risk.


Women hold signs reading "Legal abortion, global outbreak" (L) and "Take your crucifixes from our wombs" during a September protest demanding the decriminalization of abortion in Buenos Aires.
Women hold signs reading “Legal abortion, global outbreak” (L) and “Take your crucifixes from our wombs” during a September protest demanding the decriminalization of abortion in Buenos Aires. Jualn Mabromata / AFP/Getty Images

On the front lines of expanding access to abortion are women like Maria Victoria Mateu.

Her own experience with abortion — a legal one in 2002, after an ectopic pregnancy put her health at risk — turned her into an activist on the issue.

The 34-year-old started protesting for gender equality and working with a national campaign to overturn Argentina’s 1922 ban on abortion. She eventually became a socorrista, or first responder, in a national network that helps women get misoprostol.

The drug, which was developed in the 1970s to treat stomach ulcers, can also be taken orally or inserted in the vagina to induce labor and abortion up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy. Relatively cheap and widely available, it has become a go-to method for abortions in countries that forbid them.

Mateu sees it as blessing for poorer women, whose only other options for abortion are crude techniques such as inserting knitting needles, or drinking herbal concoctions.

Many women who seek her out live in villas miserias, urban shantytowns where access to public hospitals is limited. Some are victims of domestic abuse who can’t tell their spouses that they want to end their pregnancies.

As a socorrista, or first responder, Maria Victoria Mateu is part of a national network that helps women get the abortion pill misoprostol.
As a socorrista, or first responder, Maria Victoria Mateu is part of a national network that helps women get the abortion pill misoprostol. Benjamin Gottlieb / For the Times

Mateu gives a pamphlet on misoprostol to each woman and answers their questions.

Misoprostol is sold in pharmacies for around $100 with a prescription and twice that without one. Some women will conscript an older relative to fake an ulcer and ask for it over the counter.

After an abortion, Mateu makes sure the woman sees a doctor for an ultrasound. This is the most important part of the process because it catches infections so they can be treated, she said.

Since she started two years ago, Mateu has instructed more than 100 women on how to induce abortions.

“What socorristas do is deal with the right to information,” she said. “And information is legal.”

Still, she takes some precautions. She insists on meeting women face-to-face, often at La Dignidad, the leftist coffee shop at the end of her street. They text in code — substituting zapatillas (sneakers) for pastillas (pills), for example.

In extremely rare instances, women in Argentina have been prosecuted for having illegal abortions — most famously the case of a 27-year-old that the media referred to only as Belen to protect her privacy.

She went to a public hospital in the conservative city of Tucuman while having a miscarriage only to be accused by hospital staff of inducing it herself and convicted of murdering her unborn child. The case sparked rallies in her defense.

Sentenced to eight years in prison, she served two before being acquitted last March.


German Cardoso grew up in a devout Catholic home. His father was a doctor and his mother taught classes on the catechism. He never thought much about the church’s prohibition on abortion.

Then about 15 years ago, well into his own career in medicine, an older woman knocked on his clinic door. She said that years ago, his late father had performed an abortion for her. Now, she needed his help with ending her granddaughter’s pregnancy.

Cardoso was shocked to learn about his father’s secret and promised to help.

“It changed me, because from that moment I was always living in conflict,” he said. “The pressures of society, my Catholic family, the law.”

He decided to offer abortions to prevent women from risking their lives by ending their pregnancies on their own. It felt like the right thing to do — and he was relieved to discover that despite the law it was unlikely to land him in legal trouble.

The worst he has faced was a raid on his office in Buenos Aires in 2011. He was arrested and held for two days before the case was dropped and he returned to performing abortions.

He has since moved his clinic five hours southwest to the conservative city of Tandil, where he has withstood occasional ridicule in the press, and once vandalism of his clinic sign, but has never been hassled by authorities.

Dr. German Cardoso performs abortions in Tandil to prevent women from ending their pregnancies on their own.
Dr. German Cardoso performs abortions in Tandil to prevent women from ending their pregnancies on their own. Sarah Parvini / Los Angeles Times

“I knew it was bad for my image as a doctor to do abortions,” he said. “I don’t like being called ‘Dr. Aborto,’ but I wouldn’t change what I do.”

Now 60, he said he performs about 30 abortions a month, charging $1,000 — or nearly twice the monthly minimum wage in Argentina — for women who can afford it and less for those who can’t. Lately his business has seen a downturn due to competition from the local hospital, which has been increasingly willing to provide misoprostol.

The law itself provides wiggle room for doctors who perform abortions — in that it allows abortions when a woman’s health is at risk, but fails to define “health.”

That allows abortion providers to use the World Health Organization’s definition: “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

If a woman is depressed over her pregnancy, or if having a child puts her socioeconomic well-being at risk, her abortion is legal, Cardoso said.

Still, many doctors at public institutions are reluctant to push the rules.

“There’s a lot of hypocrisy,” said Dr. Eugenia Arroche, one of three doctors who performed the 80 legal abortions at Hospital Alvarez last year. “Doctors say they’re against an abortion, but when someone they know needs one, they will ask another doctor to do it for them.”

The hospital requires women seeking abortions to make the request in writing and list the reason.

One woman, who spoke on the condition that she be identified only by her first name, Maria, decided to seek an abortion after learning that the baby she was carrying had a fatal respiratory defect and would be unlikely to live for more than a few hours.

With no legal exception for birth defects, her gynecologist stalled for weeks, saying he needed to consult the ethics committee at the private hospital where he worked and at one point suggesting she seek out an illegal abortion.

“The system is very cruel,” she said.

She was more than 20 weeks pregnant by the time she wound up at Hospital Alvarez, where Levy performed her abortion last year.

It was legal, he said, because her mental health was threatened by the prospect of giving birth only to watch her baby die.

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-argentina-abortion-20171029-htmlstory.html

Government confirms group will receive £250,000 despite outcry from MPs and women’s groups

Campaigners against VAT on tampons at a protest outside parliament last year.
 Campaigners against VAT on tampons at a protest outside parliament last year. Photograph: Alamy

The government has confirmed that it is to award a quarter of a million pounds from an unpopular levy on women’s sanitary products to an anti-abortion organisation, despite objections from women’s groups and MPs.

There was an outcry earlier this year after the Observer revealed that £250,000 of the money raised from the so-called tampon tax – the 5% rate of VAT that is levied on sanitary products – would go to Life, a charity that campaigns against abortion.

The organisation also opposes plans for the expansion of sex education in primary schools and has been at the centre of controversy over the information provided by a network of unregulated pregnancy counselling centres.

Petitions opposing the grant gathered half a million signatures, while under-pressure ministers subsequently said that the specifics of the grant agreements had yet to be finalised.

However, a reply by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to a Freedom of Information request has now revealed that the award from a £12m pot will be made, though Life will be “prohibited” from spending the money on publicity or on its controversial pregnancy counselling and education services.

Diana Johnson, one of a number of Labour MPs who had pressed the government to review the grant decision, said: “This decision is not in keeping with the spirit of the tampon tax fund, which was intended to improve the lives of disadvantaged women and girls.

“This money would be much better spent on women’s organisations which truly reflect the values of this fund to empower and support women to make decisions about their lives, rather than an organisation that actively promotes restricting women’s choices.

“Many excellent women’s organisations will have lost funding bids to Life. I am very disappointed that ministers have made this decision in light of the public outcry when this was first put forward.”

The British Pregnancy Advisory Servicesaid: “It is not fitting for what is ultimately a tax on women’s bodies to be spent in this way when there are so many other projects supporting women and their choices which have not benefited .”

The government announced in March that 70 organisations would share £12m from the tampon tax fund, which it said would improve the lives of disadvantaged women and girls.

A longlist said Life would receive £250,000 for “housing, practical help, counselling, emotional support and life-skills training for young pregnant women who are homeless”. The sum was among the largest grants on the list.

The tampon tax was the focus of bitter controversy last year. Changes are expected next year that will remove VAT from sanitary products entirely. The government has already reduced the VAT rate from 20% to 5% but says it cannot go further at present because of EU competition rules.

Life said: “There is no need for ‘prohibition’ on how the grant is used. We have been very clear with the government in actually specifying that the grant will not be used for counselling or education. As we have stated before, all funds received from the government will be used to support vulnerable women in crisis.”

The DCMS said: “As set out in the grant agreement, Life will not be able to use the tampon tax grant to fund its counselling service, or its ‘Life Matters Education Service’ and is prohibited from spending the money on publicity or promotion.

“The grant is for a specific project in west London to support vulnerable, homeless or at-risk pregnant women who ask for their help. All payments will be made in arrears and on receipt of a detailed monitoring report.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/28/anti-abortion-life-charity-will-get–tampon-tax-funds?CMP=fb_gu&utm_content=buffere014f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

For weeks, a pregnant, undocumented 17-year-old has been held hostage by the government and denied an abortion. She was finally allowed to get one this morning—but that doesn’t change the horrific injustice she endured.

About a month and a half ago, an undocumented 17-year-old girl from Central America, known as Jane Doe in court documents, attempted to cross the US border into Texas by herself. Before she left, according to reports, she allegedly watched her parents beat her older sister after learning she was pregnant, hitting her with cables and firewood until she miscarried. After being apprehended by immigration officials and taken to a refugee shelter, Jane Doe learned she, too, was pregnant.

This morning, after a prolonged, Kafkaesque legal battle that pitted her against the Trump administration, Jane Doe was finally able to get an abortion. For six weeks now, she’s been held in federal custody, forced to carry a pregnancy she does not want. At the start of this ordeal, she was nine weeks pregnant. As of last night, she was 16 weeks along.

“Justice prevailed today for Jane Doe. But make no mistake about it, the administration’s efforts to interfere in women’s decisions won’t stop with Jane,” the ACLU’s Brigitte Amiri, one of the lead lawyers on the case, said in a statement. “With this case we have seen the astounding lengths this administration will go to block women from abortion care.”

The lengths have indeed been astounding: Because Jane is a minor and her parents didn’t know about her condition, she had to petition a judge for the right to get an abortion. On September 25—a full month ago—she obtained the necessary court order. With a court-appointed guardian, she was also able to navigate the cruel and perplexing bureaucracy around abortion access in Texas, arranging for transportation to a clinic and finding someone willing to pay for the procedure, which became increasingly expensive and dangerous as time passed. (At this point in the pregnancy, it would have cost over $1000.) Once Jane Doe and her guardian had managed to surmount all these legal and financial barriers, there was only one thing left standing in their way: the policies of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which controls the shelter in which Jane is currently being held.

Under the Trump administration, ORR has become the site of “anti-choice fanaticism,” as Rewire puts it. A new policy, instituted in March of this year, prohibits their shelters from taking “any action that facilitates” abortion access for unaccompanied minors without express approval from recently appointed ORR director Scott Lloyd, a prominent and very zealous Catholic attorney with absolutely no experienceresettling refugees. In his new position, Lloyd appears to be on a crusade to prevent unaccompanied, undocumented minors from obtaining abortion care. According to court documents, he has personally contacted other girls in Jane Doe’s position to discuss their decision to terminate their pregnancies. In an email sent earlier this year, he justified his behavior thusly: “The unborn child is a child in our care.”

This is the system working as abortion opponents have designed it to work. The entire point of restricting abortion access is to force women into childbirth.

Jane Doe was originally scheduled for an abortion on September 29, but ORR refused to take her. Instead, she was forced to go to a religiously affiliated “crisis pregnancy center,” where she was discouraged from going through with the procedure. “They made me see a doctor that tried to convince me not to abort and to look at sonograms. People I don’t even know are trying to make me change my mind,” Jane Doe recalled in a statement. “I made my decision and that is between me and God. Through all of this, I have never changed my mind.”

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court vacated a previous order that would have delayed Jane Doe’s abortion until Halloween, ordering that she should be allowed to get an abortion “promptly and without delay.” Thankfully, she was able to do so.

This morning, Jane was able to see a measure of justice. But the fact remains that a vulnerable teenager has been held hostage by the US government for weeks, and denied medical care she had every right to access, because of a purely ideological obsession with protecting fetuses. It’s appalling that she had to endure this; it’s grotesque that government officials would want her to.

Her case has been compared endlessly to The Handmaid’s Tale, but in truth it’s far from the realm of fiction. What happened to Jane Doe is the result of extreme, Trump-era policies as well as a decade of anti-abortion zealotry at the state level. This is the system working as abortion opponents have designed it to work. The entire point of restricting abortion access is to force women into childbirth with no consideration for their autonomy, their constitutional rights, or the complex and painful situations they may find themselves in.

Jane Doe’s case is extreme, and it’s completely unconscionable. It’s sickening that a helpless teenager, who traveled unknown miles seeking safety, has been denied medical treatment because the US government sees her fetus—and not her—as “a child in our care” deserving of full legal protection. But what our government did to Jane is also the logical conclusion of the hundreds of anti-abortion provisions enacted in the past few years by lawmakers who hypocritically claim to be doing noble, moral work “protecting life” while forcing women into desperate situations. By design, this sort of insidious policymaking disproportionately affects the populations that can’t afford to navigate the frustrating and seemingly endless gauntlet of unnecessary regulations around abortion care: poor women, young women, women of color, women who live in rural areas, and undocumented women. It is precisely because Jane Doe is so vulnerable that she was subjected to such horrific treatment by the state.

What our government did to this pregnant, scared teenager lays bare the ugly truth at the heart of anti-abortion arguments, one that anti-choicers try so fervently to obscure: The opposite of reproductive choice is forced motherhood, which bestows full humanity on gestating fetuses at the expense of the women carrying them.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/d3dvqk/when-a-fetus-is-a-child-who-needs-protection-but-a-pregnant-teen-isnt?utm_source=vicefbus

Legislature passes bill to create zones around 8 abortion clinics in the province

The legislature passed a bill Wednesday to create zones around the eight clinics in the province of between 50 and 150 metres in which anti-abortion protests will be banned.

The legislature passed a bill Wednesday to create zones around the eight clinics in the province of between 50 and 150 metres in which anti-abortion protests will be banned. (Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images)

It will soon be illegal to protest outside and near abortion clinics in Ontario.

The legislature passed a bill Wednesday to create zones around the eight clinics in the province of between 50 and 150 metres in which anti-abortion protests, advising a person not to get an abortion, and intimidation or interfering with a woman’s ability to access the services will be banned.

The ban will also automatically apply to 150 metres around the homes of abortion staff and health professionals who provide the services.

Attorney General Yasir Naqvi cheered that all three parties worked together to pass the legislation on a sped-up timeline.

“We as legislators have passed a very important piece of legislation ensuring that women have safe access to health-care services like reproductive health and abortion services,” he said. “We worked on this bill on a very short time frame to ensure that we protect women.”

Bill’s timing inflamed tensions between Liberals, PCs

The bill’s timing had inflamed political tensions between the governing Liberals and the Opposition Progressive Conservatives. The Tories had proposed passing the bill immediately after it was introduced, with no debate or committee hearings, and the Liberals declined, which led the PCs to accuse the government of trying to draw it out, hoping it would expose divisions within the PC party.

Opposition Leader Patrick Brown noted his party unanimously voted for the bill’s passage Wednesday, and said it did not cause any divisions within his caucus.

Several of his caucus members — including those who have espoused socially conservative views — however, were absent for the vote. Two were away for health reasons, Brown said, though they are not the members who hold those views.

Brown did not directly address the absence of the social conservative members, but noted many Liberals were away as well. That included two of three Liberals who have been praised by anti-abortion group Campaign Life Coalition for their views.

The lone politician to vote against the bill was Jack MacLaren, a former Progressive Conservative who now sits as an independent after joining the Trillium Party, which the legislature does not recognize as an official party.

yasir naqvi

Attorney General Yasir Naqvi cheered that all three parties worked together to pass the legislation on a sped-up timeline. (CBC)

CLC threatening legal challenge ‘if necessary’

Campaign Life Coalition released a statement threatening a legal challenge to the bill “if necessary,” saying it attacks freedom of speech.

Naqvi has previously said that going through a proper legislative process — even an expedited one — versus immediate passage helps to ensure the bill can withstand a constitutional challenge.

No changes were made to the bill between its introduction and its passage.

The law will not come into force immediately, however, as the zones need to be set through regulations, Naqvi said.

There will be an application process for other health-care providers or pharmacists, as some Ontario pharmacies recently started offering the abortion pill, Mifegymiso.

Anyone who violates the safe zones will face up to $5,000 in fines and six months in jail for a first offence and fines of $1,000 to $10,000 and up to a year in jail for a second or subsequent offence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-abortion-protest-bill-1.4372090

It’s the latest in a series of attempts to restrict abortion access.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives voted to ban abortion after 20 weeks. Now, the GOP is officially aiming to ban abortions considerably earlier — at six weeks, before many women even realize they’re pregnant.

Back in January, the GOP introduced a bill banning abortion “in cases where a fetal heartbeat is detectable.” Last night, news broke that next Wednesday, November 1, a judiciary committee will hold a hearing to discuss the bill, entitled H.R. 490: Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017. The proposed bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Steve King of Iowa, would make it a federal crime to knowingly perform abortions “without determining whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat,” “without informing the mother of the results,” or “after determining that a fetus has a detectable heartbeat.”

“Since Roe v. Wade was unconstitutionally decided in 1973, nearly 60 million innocent babies’ lives have been ended by the abortion industry, all with a rubber stamp by the federal government,” King said in a press release in January. “If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected.”

The only exception to the bill is if a woman has a physical — but, notably, “not psychological or emotional” — condition or illness that makes the pregnancy life-threatening for her; otherwise, physicians who perform the procedure could face up to five years in prison, a fine, or both.

If all this sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because a similar bill in Ohio led to an uproar before Governor John Kasich vetoed it. The same could happen H.R. 490, which as Refinery29highlights, likely won’t pass in the House and the Senate — but it’s clear that this is a battle that’s far from over.

In a statement emailed to Teen Vogue, NARAL Pro-Choice America senior vice president Sasha Bruce said, “the GOP’s crazy obsession with banning all abortions in this country knows no end, no boundary, and no common sense.

“Americans are clear: they want their elected officials addressing the crises our country faces instead of wasting time and taxpayer dollars attempting to ban abortion,” Bruce said. “The majority of Americans stand on the side of abortion access, and seven in 10 Americans believe abortion should remain legal and accessible. That’s not just a majority, that’s consensus, and we will keep mobilizing and organizing to ensure that all women can make decisions about their lives, bodies, and futures.”

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/six-week-abortion-ban

Alex Wong/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Reproductive rights advocates had a reason to celebrate on Thursday when a federal judge blocked two abortion restrictions in Alabama. One prevented clinics from operating abortions within 2,000 feet from public schools, signed into law after abortion opponents claimed a Huntsville abortion clinic and demonstrations there disrupted students attending nearby schools. The other law banned dilation and evacuation, a procedure commonly used to terminate pregnancies in the second trimester.

Former Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed the two laws in May 2016. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson declared both laws were “unconstitutional” and would place “undue burden on a woman’s ability to choose an abortion.”

Thompson wrote in his decision that there was no evidence that the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives concerned the schools’ students or parents. He also wrote that the closure or relocation of the that clinic, located in Huntsville, would neither minimize disruption nor hinder a parent’s right to control their children’s exposure to the subject of abortion. The Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives sits near an elementary school and across the street from a magnet school. Local Rev. James Henderson and other anti-abortion protesters have clashed with patients and escorts coming in and out of the clinic.

Thompson also struck down the law banning a safe and common procedure for second trimester abortions. Anti-abortion activists have dubbed the dilation and evacuation method with the non-medical term “dismemberment abortion.” The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a statement opposing such bans that “represent legislative interference at its worst: doctors will be forced, by ill-advised, unscientifically motivated policy, to provide lesser care to patients.”

Had Thompson ruled in favor of the laws, Alabama would have to close two abortion clinics, the one in Huntsville and one in Tuscaloosa, leaving only three remaining in the state. Doctors perform 72 percent of the state’s abortions at the two clinics that were on the chopping block. The limited options would disproportionately affect low-income women who would have to drive further away or out of state to get abortions, Thompson wrote.

Thompson’s decision comes just a few months after a federal judge struck down a previous abortion restriction in the state as unconstitutional. Alabama law requires that a minor either have parental consent for an abortion or a court order to bypass parental consent. Usually a judge and the minor’s lawyer is involved in the legal process, where the bypass court determines if the minor is mature and well-informed enough to make a decision.

Judge Susan Walker struck down 2014 amendments to that law that gave the court power to appoint a legal representative for the fetus. The amendments also required a district attorney to be involved, and permitted the abortion seeker’s parents or guardians at the hearing. All involved parties, including the fetus’ representative ad litem, would be allowed to call witnesses to testify for or against the minor’s choice.

Reproductive rights advocates and the judge argued that adding more people to the process violated the minor’s privacy. “The bypass court is hardly the appropriate setting for such counseling, in any event; it is neither a physician’s office, nor a classroom, nor any other such place of instruction or guidance,” Walker wrote.

Alabama is not the only state dealing with attempts to chip away at Roe v. Wade. Legislation in Texas — which used to have more than 40 abortion clinics — set up tight measures that eventually forced several clinics to shut down. By the time the restrictions reached the Supreme Court, where they were ultimately struck down, Texas had only 19 abortion clinics.

As of August 2017, seven states have only one abortion clinic: Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. And while conservative states have garnered the most attention in such cases, abortion clinics are disappearing in liberal states as well.

https://www.bustle.com/p/federal-judge-rules-alabamas-anti-abortion-laws-are-unconstitutional-saved-2-clinics-from-shutting-down-3010144?utm_source=nar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB

“Everything that we provide is on our website, so there will be no comment,” Howard said, before hanging up on Rewire.

Attleboro Women’s Health Center in Massachusetts, like many abortion clinics,has a website offering information about the steps involved in surgical and medication abortion care, price estimates, reassuring imagery of personnel in white coats, and appointments “to discuss the abortion methods that may be available to you.”

There’s only one hitch.

This center doesn’t offer abortion—or even accurate information about the procedure. Attleboro Women’s Health Center is a crisis pregnancy center, or fake clinic, whose mission is to deter patients from abortion care. The center’s website is registered to Darlene Howard, executive director of Abundant Hope Pregnancy Resource Center, which is a self-described “Christian pro-life ministry.” The two organizations share an address.

Melissa Simas, who lives in the area, told Rewire that she noticed within the past week that the center had installed a green awning with the words “Attleboro Women’s Health Center.”

The fake clinic is about half a mile from Four Women Health Services, an abortion clinic. (Disclosure: This Rewire reporter worked at Four Women several years ago.) While it’s not unusual for anti-choice centers to try to lure abortion clinic patients by offering the false impression that they provide abortion care, the extent of this center’s efforts shocked pro-choice advocates.

“It’s one of the most egregious cases of deceptive rebranding of a CPC I can personally remember seeing in over a decade of advocating for reproductive freedom,” Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, told Rewire, after reviewing the website.

The site, which has been active for months, was recently changed to add tabs on the abortion pill and surgical abortion. It features a detailed breakdown of the procedures for varying gestational ages; unscientific terms like “dismember” and “unborn baby” may alert discerning readers that this is biased information. When a Rewire reporter registered for an appointment and inquired by email about the center’s services, a representative promised the “initial appointment will include a free pregnancy test and an abortion consultation to discuss which methods may be available to you based on your individual circumstances.”

It’s only deep in the “About” section that the center acknowledges it does “not offer, recommend or refer for abortions or abortifacients.”

“Everything that we provide is on our website, so there will be no comment,” Howard said, before hanging up on Rewire.

The website features unsubstantiated claims about the purported psychological risks of abortion—contradicting research that shows abortion does not damage mental health—and a phone number for so-called abortion reversal, a misleading and unproven protocol promoted by anti-choice activists.

Abundant Hope is listed as an affiliate of Heartbeat International, which describes itself as the largest network of crisis pregnancy centers in the world, and instructs these centers to conceal their true intentions by scrapping religious language, for example. (Someone who answered the phone at Attleboro Women’s Health Center acknowledged it is under the same “umbrella” as Abundant Hope.) Attleboro Women’s Health Center’s website claims it “was founded to empower women to make informed decisions about an unplanned pregnancy that support their privacy, dignity and self-respect.”

That’s a near-verbatim repetition of the stated mission of the abortion clinic nearby: “to empower women to make informed decisions that support their privacy, dignity and self-respect.”

While it has relatively few restrictions on abortion care, Massachusetts allows the sale of “Choose Life” license plates and donates a portion of the proceeds to anti-choice organizations—one of 15 states to do so. Crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics in the state by more than three to one, with 30 operating across the state, according to a 2011 NARAL report.

“I think it’s wrong for us to fall into the trap of thinking, ‘Well, we’re in a state historically friendly to women’s rights,’ particularly in this climate where we have anti-choice forces emboldened by our leadership on the federal level,” said Holder of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

Indeed, these anti-choice fake clinics have found key allies in the Trump administration.

The family of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has funneled money to crisis pregnancy centers, including one in Grand Rapids, Michigan, that, like the one in Attleboro, lists detailed information about abortion procedures and touts abortion reversal on its website. Vice President Mike Pence divertedmillions intended for needy families to fake clinics while he was Indiana governor. And a Rewire reviewfound the Trump administration has already awarded such clinics millions in taxpayer dollars.

“The deceptive and false things they’re saying [on the Attleboro website] about the harms of abortion are part of this general narrative that has taken hold within many areas in the federal government,” Kelli Garcia, director of reproductive justice initiatives at the National Women’s Law Center, told Rewire.

While a number of states have used public dollars to support fake clinics, Hawaii was the most recent state to attempt to crack down on their deceptive tactics, following California. Both states have faced legal challenges from anti-choice groups over these regulations, as have cities like Baltimore, which defended its truth-in-advertising ordinance in court this week.

Rewire contacted the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to ask if the Attleboro clinic’s behavior might constitute fraud or other illegal behavior.

“Every woman has a right to make decisions about her own reproductive health care without being subjected to intimidation or harassment,” Emalie Gainey, a spokesperson for Healey, said in an emailed statement. Following a Rewire report last year, Healey announced a settlement agreement to prohibit a Boston-based firm hired by anti-choice groups from targeting “abortion-minded women” in Massachusetts with digital propaganda while they visit abortion clinics.

Meanwhile, grassroots groups are taking action. The Expose Fake Clinics campaign, which involves dozens of organizations, including Lady Parts Justice, encourages people to submit and “like” accurate reviews on platforms like Yelp and Google to expose the ideological goals of fake clinics.

“Our whole thing is, you should be up front,” Lizz Winstead, founder of Lady Parts Justice, told Rewire. “If you are a Christian-based organization that would like to encourage people who are pregnant to have a baby, then you should say that’s who you are. But the fact that you don’t leads me to believe that you can’t get people in your doors by saying that about yourself.”

https://rewire.news/article/2017/10/24/massachusetts-fake-clinic-unveils-new-way-trick-seeking-abortion-care/

Scott Lloyd, the head of the Office of Refugee Resettlement who has long promoted controversial views on women’s health, is at the center of a federal abortion case after he tried to block an undocumented teenager from getting an abortion.

Free condoms handed out by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation staff and volunteers in Washington, DC.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty Images

Free condoms handed out by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation staff and volunteers in Washington, DC.

A Trump administration appointee who blocked an undocumented, pregnant teenager from obtaining an abortion before the courts weighed in in her favor, has a history of controversial statements about contraception and abortion.

Scott Lloyd, the current director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), suggested in multiple opinion articles that women receiving contraception through federal funding should have to sign a “pledge” promising not to have an abortion and that the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion infringe on men’s “right to procreation.”

Lloyd’s early writings on the subject of abortion shed light on his decision to decline to give permission to a government-funded shelter to release a pregnant, undocumented 17-year-old to get an abortion. That decision became the subject of a federal lawsuit brought by the Jane Doe at the center of the case and the American Civil Liberties Union. (Doe was ultimately successful.)

“I suggest that the American people make a deal with women: So long as you are using the condom, pill or patch I am providing with my money, you are going to promise not to have an abortion if the contraception fails, which it often does,” Lloyd wrote in an article for the National Catholic Register in 2009.

“We can do this by having the woman sign a pledge,” he continued. “If they go on to have an abortion, they become ineligible for more taxpayer-bought contraception. They would have to buy it themselves or turn to private sources of funding for the contraception. Or, they could stop having sex until they are ready to have a child.”

In this article, titled “Bailing Out Abortionists?”, Lloyd suggests that much of the Title X family planning fund, which provides free or inexpensive contraception and reproductive care to low-income women, would increase abortion rates. At the time of the op-ed, Democrats in Congress were pushing to increase Title X funding, arguing that access to contraception decreases abortion rates.

Lloyd argues that the increased budget would go toward buying “truckloads of condoms” to distribute for free. Many of those condoms would fail, he argues, causing unplanned pregnancies and abortions, therefore, “bailing out” abortion providers. Following that logic, he went on to compare places like Planned Parenthood that distribute free contraception and perform abortions, to those on Wall Street who caused the 2008 financial crisis.

In fact, Title X funding is used for many different kinds of more effective contraception, such as the Pill, IUDs, and other long-lasting contraception methods, as well as STD testing and prevention, and sex education.

In another article, written for Ethika Politika (the blog for the Center for Morality in Public Life) in 2011, Lloyd recommended that anti-abortion state legislators across the country write laws that “women must notify the men of their decision to abort, and gain their consent.”

Lloyd wrote that the laws would help to prove a point to the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court has implied, perhaps without realizing it, that the physical realities of pregnancy for the woman will serve to imbue her most weightless rationales with the magic ability to trump a man’s right to procreation, and his right in his children,” he wrote.

“Savvy state legislators should make the Supreme Court say this outright, if that is the type of regime they support,” he continued, suggesting that, when these laws are inevitably challenged, these arguments could be used to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal.

HHS declined to comment on Lloyd’s writings.

Before his appointment as ORR director, Lloyd had a long history of being involved with anti-abortion organizations. Just prior to his appointment to the Trump administration, Lloyd served on the board of directors for the Front Royal Pregnancy Center, an anti-abortioncounseling center. He also worked as a general counsel at HHS under President George W. Bush, during which he coauthored a controversial “conscience rule” enabling health care providers to decline to pay for or provide abortions.

In court arguments last week, ACLU lawyer Brigitte Amiri told the court that under the Lloyd-led ORR’s guidance, Doe had been taken her to an anti-abortion counseling center. They also highlighted a previous case in which Lloyd, as ORR director, personally visited another undocumented pregnant minor to talk her out of getting an abortion.

The majority of ORR’s duties do not involve medical decisions; it’s the wing of the Department of Health and Human Services charged with helping undocumented, unaccompanied children and newly arrived refugees. A 2008 policy issued under George W. Bush gave ORR “heightened involvement” in significant medical procedures such as surgeries and abortions. But in early March, the Trump administration issued a new interpretation of the policy, which explicitly prohibited federally funded shelters are “from taking any action that facilitates an abortion without direction and approval from the Director of ORR.” Lloyd had not yet been officially appointed to ORR when the memo was released, but was already working as an adviser to HHS.

Lloyd employed this policy in mid-September, when he refused to let the pregnant teenager leave the shelter to get an abortion. Court documents show that the shelter was okay with letting her leave the premises to get the abortion, and a state judge waived the law requiring she obtain permission from a parent or guardian.

Lawyers for the Trump administration defended Lloyd’s position in the hearing Friday that the government shouldn’t be “complicit in facilitating” the minor’s abortion and that, in not facilitating the abortion, the government is fulfilling its duty to “act in the best interest” of the minor.

But on Tuesday, a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, ruled that she can get an abortion, over the objections of Trump administration lawyers. She successfully underwentthe procedure soon after.

HHS responded to requests for comment for this story with a statement, saying: “For however much time we are given, the Office of Refugee Resettlement and HHS will protect the well-being of this minor and all children and their babies in our facilities. And we will defend human dignity for all in our care.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emaoconnor/a-trump-official-once-suggested-women-who-get-free?utm_term=.flO6X95Kk#.boNvlDxpr

You’re off your tether, Missouri, and you’re lumbering around knocking over telephone poles and stripping pregnant people of their human rights.

Hello, Missouri? Do you mind if I call you Missouri?

It just has a nicer ring than “Missouri State Legislature,” though of course there are plenty of people inside the state working against anti-choice machinations. I’m just going to call you Missouri for short, though. You don’t mind, do you?

I thought it might be nice for us to sit down and catch up. It’s been two years since we last had a chat: In 2015, I wrote you an open letter about your herculean efforts to regulate the last clinic in your state out of existence.

Fortunately, despite your best efforts, clinic access in Missouri is actually getting better. Prior to September of this year, there was only one standalone abortion clinic—the same one you tried for years to shut down. Now, as Rewire reported back in September, Planned Parenthood has opened a second. And according to this report from Christina Cauterucci at Slate, the state might soon have five clinics.

Five! That’s good news for pregnant people that live inside you, Missouri.

But you haven’t given up trying to stick it to them.

During the 2017 regular legislative session, you tried to pass more than 20 bills. All of them failed. And then in June, your Republican governor, Eric Greitens, called a second special session—to focus on cracking down on abortion. It was a Hail Mary attempt to ram through ten more bills restricting abortion access.

All of them failed except one, SB 5—and that one is already in litigation.

SB 5 is an omnibus Frankenbill—pieces of different bills grafted together—that Gov. Greitens signed into law on July 26. It contains pieces of bills that the legislature couldn’t get passed during the regular session.

One provision of SB 5, which gives your attorney general “concurrent original jurisdiction”(legalese for “allows the AG to open independent investigations into alleged clinic violations”) comes from two failed regular session attempts to pass the same policy—one in the house and one in the senate. That section was rammed through out of concerns that local governments—in St. Louis, for example—are run by Democrats and are too progressive, according to GOVERNING. “The prosecuting attorney in St. Louis is a pro-choice Democrat, so we just wanted another set of eyes there,” Andrew Koenig (R-Manchester), the state senator who sponsored SB 5, is reported to have said.

It takes a red-blooded Republican to harass clinics out of existence, I reckon.

Another section of SB 5, meanwhile, comes from a failed regular session bill—HB 989—that purported to prohibit cities or towns from declaring themselves “sanctuaries” for abortion. Some readers may be asking: What the hell is an abortion sanctuary?

Great question. First and foremost, the language is probably a scare tactic that Republicans are using to capitalize on the pervasive, racist, and unwarranted fear of undocumented immigrants, what with cities around the country refusing to kowtow to President Donald Trump by announcing that they would become “sanctuaries” for undocumented immigrants to live without worrying, at least in theory, that any interaction with a public official or agency would result in deportation. The “abortion sanctuary” term is tacky at best, but tackiness is no stranger to you, is it Missouri? (Remember the “All Lives Matter” Act, which your legislature tried to pass in 2016? HB 1794? Exactly. Tacky.)

But aside from that, what is an abortion sanctuary city? Anyone’s guess is as good as mine, although St. Louis is apparently one. This actually gets a little bit weird: St. Louis passed an ordinance in February that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person’s reproductive health-care decisions. So, for example, an employer couldn’t refuse to hire you because you use birth control, have had an abortion, or are pregnant. Seems pretty straightforward.

Not to Gov. Greitens, though. Apparently, by calling the special session, he intended to make do on his promise at an anti-abortion rally back in March to stop those “crazy liberals and their allies at organizations like NARAL that are trying to create an abortion sanctuary city right here in the state of Missouri.”

Why your governor has his knickers in a twist about St. Louis’ ordinance is anybody’s guess. The “no country for old abortion” provision of SB 5 really has nothing to do with the city’s ordinance.  It bans local governments from enacting laws that would force a person to participate in an abortion if they didn’t want to, or force a property owner to sell or lease property to a clinic, or interfere with the operations or free speech rights of “crisis pregnancy centers.”

As St. Louis Alderwoman Megan Greene told Missourinet before SB 5 was signed into law, the bill doesn’t even address St. Louis’ nondiscrimination ordinance.

Is there something in the statehouse water? Because Republicans there aren’t make any sense.

Another section of SB 5 requires abortion providers to create a “complication plan” for medical abortions and to get that plan approved by the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It’s a TRAP law (that’s Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider, for those who don’t know) that the house tried to pass on its own, to no avail.

In the wake of SB 5’s passage, DHHS issued a memo on October 2 stating that it would be filing emergency rules setting out the standards for complication plans this week, according to St. Louis Public Radio. Doctors who provide medical abortions would be required to contract with an OB/GYN to treat any complications that arise. If that sounds sort of like an admitting privileges law—the kind that the Supreme Court struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt because Texas provided no evidence that the law would actually improve women’s health and safety—that’s because it kind of is. And that’s why I’m pretty sure once the DHHS issues standards for these complication plans, Planned Parenthood or another group will file a lawsuit challenging them. (Planned Parenthood has not done so yet, likely because the lawsuit is not “ripe”—in other words, there are no standards yet with which clinics have to comply, so clinics have nothing to sue about. As soon as those standards are issued, however, the lawsuit will become “ripe” and Planned Parenthood will be able to file a lawsuit challenging them.)

And then there’s the provision that has landed SB 5 in court: the “same physician” requirement, which you added to your “informed consent” requirements. This is where it gets truly ridiculous.

You already have a pretty extensive regulatory framework about consent, Missouri. Pregnant people must go to a clinic to receive state-mandated information in a private setting both in writing and orally. And pregnant people have to do all of this 72 hours before the abortion. This means that someone who, say, lives four hours away from a clinic might have to make at least two eight-hour trips in a week to access care. It’s a pain in the ass, is what I’m saying, Missouri.

And now, in addition to all of that, SB 5 requires that the state-mandated information be given by the same physician who is going to perform the abortion. It used to be that the information could be provide by a “qualified professional.” But that wasn’t enough. Now you want to stretch already thinly stretched abortion doctors even further, by forcing them to take on added counseling responsibilities?

What is the health benefit of that, Missouri? Oh, there is none and you know it.

And I’d be willing to bet that your little law doesn’t pass the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt smell test, which requires a law that is touted as being for the benefit of women’s health and safety to actually be for the benefit of women’s health. States just can’t claim it is and rest smugly on their laurels. The resident U.S. Supreme Court data nerd—Justice Stephen Breyer—isn’t having any of that. States have to prove it.

And I don’t think you can prove it, Missouri. And neither does Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which is why it sued you in the first place. Sure, the district court judge Monday said that the waiting period is constitutional and that the same-physician requirement is constitutional. Jackson County Circuit Court Judge S. Margene Burnett said that the scarcity of abortion doctors isn’t your fault, Missouri, and that the law doesn’t impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion. Really, Marge?

Pfft. We’ll just have to see what happens when the Supreme Court gets their hands on this one. First, the scarcity of abortion doctors actually is your fault, Missouri: You tried to pass over a hundred bills regulating the one clinic out of existence. And now that you have successfully whittled down the number of abortion doctors in the state—either because they have no practice or because they fear criminalization—suddenly it’s not your fault?

That’s not how this works. At least, that’s certainly not how it should work.

Aside from your looming court battles, let’s chat about some of the other nonsense you tried to pull this year, Missouri.

You tried four times to make 20-week abortion bans happen. Like so much “fetch,” it didn’t. You also took several stabs at trying to make personhood happen. That didn’t happen either. You tried to ban abortion outright (HB 1177) and also tried to ban it at six weeks (SB 408), which is when a heartbeat can be detected. Neither of those laws is constitutional, Missouri. You know better.

You introduced several bills that regulated or banned fetal tissue donationseveral bills dedicated to making it more difficult for pregnant teens to obtain abortion care, and a couple bills that criminalize prenatal drug and alcohol use, virtually ensuring that pregnant people who happen to be addicted to drugs won’t seek care out of fear of imprisonment.

And you also tried to pass several bills that would let CPCs continue to prey on pregnant people, by prohibiting local governments from regulating them.

Plus, there were a couple of bills that defy logic and categorization: laws that seem designed just to piss me off. Yes, me, specifically. A bill requiring that the state museum include an abortion exhibit? And that the abortion exhibit must be near the exhibit on slavery? (This, of course, was introduced by the same guy who introduced the All Lives Matter Act personhood bill.)

You’re out of control, Missouri. More than 35 bills and you managed only to pass one, which is already in court.

You’re like one of those unmoored oversized floats you see at the Thanksgiving Day parade in New York City—you know the one that gets loose because it was manned by a dude who accidentally put too much whisky in his coffee?

You’re off your tether, Missouri, and you’re lumbering around knocking over telephone poles and stripping pregnant people of their human rights.

And let’s face it, you’re probably going to get your ass handed to you by Planned Parenthood, and then your taxpayers are going to have to pay Planned Parenthood’s attorneys’ fees, and it seems that money could be better spent on—I don’t know—expanding Medicaid?

Look, Missouri, I know it’s not the entire state that has been making some questionable decisions. There are plenty of lawmakers and grassroots activists working hard to make life better for pregnant people in Missouri. Many Missourians love their state and just want to be healthy and to prosper. That doesn’t seem to be Republicans’ bag, though.

So I don’t know what to tell you, Missouri.

You’re the “show me” state, right? So show me some thing good. Show me that people in Missouri can rest assured that they will have access to affordable health care, including abortion. Maybe show Republicans the door. Otherwise you’ll remain—as a friend from Missouri once told me—the “show me the way out” state. And you don’t want that, do you?

Of course not.

Good walk and talk Missouri. Let’s not have this conversation again. It’s exhausting.

https://rewire.news/ablc/2017/10/24/hi-missouri-can-talk-abortion-minute/

Undocumented teen gets abortion after Trump admin tried to stop her

After weeks of legal battles, the undocumented teenager known only as “Jane Doe” got an abortion in Texas Wednesday morning.

The Trump administration had sought to prevent the 17-year-old Doe, as she’s known in court papers, from getting an abortion even after the Central American teen secured permission from the state of Texas. Doe has been in the custody of a shelter operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement since she entered in the United States in September, and the administration has argued in court that federal policy forbids “any action that facilitates” abortion without the approval of the Office of Refugee Resettlement Director Scott Lloyd.

The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday disagreed with that argument Tuesday, ruling that the Trump administration had to allow Doe to get her abortion.

“The government has insisted that it may categorically blockade exercise of her constitutional right unless this child (like some kind of legal Houdini) figures her own way out of detention,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote in a concurring opinion, calling the government’s position “constitutionally untenable.”

That decision reversed a Friday ruling, by three of the panel’s judges, mandating that Doe secure an immigration sponsor before she could get the procedure. It also allowed Doe’s lawyers to get a temporary restraining order from a federal district court, so Doe could leave the shelter and receive her abortion.

In a statement, Doe said:

My name is not Jane Doe, but I am a Jane Doe.

I’m a 17 year old girl that came to this country to make a better life for myself. My journey wasn’t easy, but I came here with hope in my heart to build a life I can be proud of. I dream about studying, becoming a nurse, and one day working with the elderly.

When I was detained, I was placed in a shelter for children. It was there that I was told I was pregnant. I knew immediately what was best for me then, as I do now – that I’m not ready to be a parent. Thanks to my lawyers, Rochelle Garza and Christine Cortez, and with the help of Jane’s Due Process, I went before a judge and was given permission to end my pregnancy without my parents’ consent. I was nervous about appearing in court, but I was treated very kindly. I am grateful that the judge agreed with my decision and granted the bypass.

While the government provides for most of my needs at the shelter, they have not allowed me to leave to get an abortion. Instead, they made me see a doctor that tried to convince me not to abort and to look at sonograms. People I don’t even know are trying to make me change my mind. I made my decision and that is between me and God. Through all of this, I have never changed my mind.

No one should be shamed for making the right decision for themselves. I would not tell any other girl in my situation what they should do. That decision is hers and hers alone.

I’ve been waiting for more than a month since I made my decision. It has been very difficult to wait in the shelter for news that the judges in Washington, D.C., have given me permission to proceed with my decision. I am grateful for this, and I ask that the government accept it. Please stop delaying my decision any longer.

My lawyers have told me that people around the country have been calling and writing to show support for me. I am touched by this show of love from people I may never know and from a country I am just beginning to know – to all of you, thank you.

This is my life, my decision. I want a better future. I want justice.

https://news.vice.com/story/undocumented-teen-gets-abortion-after-trump-admin-tried-to-stop-her?utm_source=vicenewsfb