Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

Illinois Democrats’ pro-choice push could help providers cope with an influx of out-of-state patients by expanding the number of medical professionals who can provide in-clinic abortion services.

Illinois Democrats’ efforts to secure access to reproductive health care are in stark contrast to surrounding states. Republicans in Missouri and Indiana have enacted some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States, including mandatory counseling and forced waiting periods to receive abortion care.
Shutterstock

Illinois Democrats recently introduced legislation to secure and expand reproductive rights, changes that could have far-reaching effects, as people travel to Illinois to secure abortion care that is difficult to access in neighboring states.

And one part of that legislation could help providers cope with that influx of out-of-state patients by expanding the number of medical professionals who can provide in-clinic abortion services.

The two bills proposed last week in the Illinois General Assembly would repeal decades-old statues intended to criminalize abortion providers and require parental notification for minors to receive abortion care. The measures have large Democratic support in the general assembly where Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers.

“It’s pushing back against a deliberate strategy of the anti-abortion movement of stigmatizing and siloing women’s reproductive health care, and these bills are saying we need to treat reproductive health care like any other health care,” Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois, told Rewire.News.

The Reproductive Health Act (HB 2495), proposed in the Illinois House by state Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), would repeal a 1975 law that includes criminal penalties for doctors who offer abortion care, though it has been largely blocked by the courts. The legislation also seeks to repeal targeted regulations on facilities that provide abortion services, repeal laws that have allowed husbands to block their wives from obtaining abortions, and require all private health insurance companies in the state to provide coverage for abortions. The Reproductive Health Act builds on a law Illinois lawmakers passed two years ago requiring Medicaid and state group health insurance plans to cover abortion, Connell said.

The legislation would repeal the state’s ban on so-called partial-birth abortion, which is unenforceable. Anti-choice activists use “partial birth abortion,” an unscientific term, to describe an uncommon type of dilation and evacuation abortion (D and E) known as an “intact D and E.”

Another key provision of the Reproductive Health Act would allow advanced practice nurses and clinicians to provide in-clinic abortions. Current law only allows for physicians to provide these procedures while advanced practice nurses are limited to providing medication abortion. Allowing nurse practitioners to provide in-clinic abortions will increase the number of providers in the state, potentially meeting an increased demand should patients from surrounding areas continue to seek care in Illinois, said Liz Higgins, associate medical director of Planned Parenthood of Illinois.

“Adding in-clinic abortions for nurse practitioners would be a huge benefit of this bill,” Higgins said, noting that nurse practitioners already provide a range of reproductive health care, including IUD insertion and other gynecological procedures. “Limiting in-clinic abortions for advanced practice nurses is really just harming our patients by limiting access to health care in a timely manner.”

Illinois Democrats’ efforts to secure access to reproductive health care are in stark contrast to surrounding states. Republicans in Missouri and Indiana have enacted some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States, including mandatory counseling and forced waiting periods to receive abortion care. It’s not uncommon for providers in Illinois to see women traveling from surrounding states to seek care they couldn’t receive closer to home, said Julie Lynn, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Illinois. In 2017, more than 5,500 women traveled from out of state to terminate a pregnancy in Illinois, according to the Chicago Tribune.

“We’re always thinking about how our patients are going to be impacted as well as people at large because there are states surrounding us with extremely restrictive laws regarding reproductive health care access,” Lynn said. “So if there’s anything we can do in Illinois to lessen that burden on anyone then we want to make sure to do that.”

Missouri is one of five states with a forced 72-hour waiting period between counseling and an abortion procedure. Both Missouri and Indiana ban the use of telemedicine to administer medication abortion and require minors to receive parental consent before terminating a pregnancy.

Illinois had 40 abortion-providing facilities in 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Last year Missouri only had one. Planned Parenthood operates 17 health centers in Illinois, 15 of which provide medication abortion and five that provide in-clinic abortions, Lynn said.

The second bill, SB 1594, which was introduced in Illinois’ state senate last week, would repeal the 1995 Parental Notice of Abortion Act, which requires  minors to notify a guardian before receiving abortion care or otherwise appear before a judge and receive a judicial bypass. The law was blocked by the courts from 1995 to 2013, but has been enforced in Illinois for the past five years after the Illinois Supreme Court upheld it.

Although the measure is smaller in scope than the Reproductive Health Act, Higgins said repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion Act is crucial to eliminating barriers to health care for minors.

“A majority of minors are already telling a family member or trusted adult if they are getting an abortion, but unfortunately a handful of patients live in dangerous family situations and aren’t able to tell their parents or a trusted adult,” Higgins said. “Making them go before a judge is putting more barriers in front of these patients, and we want to make sure we’re not making this harder on young people.”

The pro-choice proposals in Illinois follow similar efforts in states like Massachusetts, where lawmakers are working to expand access to medication abortion. New York Democratic lawmakers recently passed a measure to secure abortion rights should conservatives on the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, while lawmakers in New Mexico are working to repeal the state’s decades-old abortion ban. Rhode Island Democrats are working to pass a measure that would enshrine abortion rights into law despite resistance from anti-choice Democratic leaders in the state.

“It’s extremely important to modernize the law because with the current landscape and makeup of the Supreme Court, no one knows what the future of reproductive rights in this country is going to be,” Lynn said. “Looking at the makeup of the Supreme Court, it’s not in favor of reproductive health so we want to make sure we are doing whatever we can to protect and expand those rights and most importantly acknowledge abortion as health care and take it out of the criminal code.”

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2019/02/19/pro-choice-bills-could-cement-illinois-as-the-midwests-abortion-care-oasis/

Democratic governors in Illinois, Maine, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, and California are seeking to expand health-care access and LGBTQ protections.

One week after taking office, Gov. J.B. Pritzker issued an executive order declaring his commitment “to ensuring that Illinois is the most progressive state in the nation for protecting women’s reproductive rights.”
WGN News / YouTube

As Republicans maintain a hold over the U.S. Senate and the Trump administration continues to threaten health care, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ rights, new governors are flexing their muscles to address those issues on the state level.

“At a time when the Trump Administration is rolling back LGBTQ acceptance at every opportunity, it’s reassuring that the nation has governors … who will put their foot down and make sure LGBTQ people and marginalized communities have a seat at the table,” said Zeke Stokes, GLAAD’s chief programs officer, in a statement to Rewire.News. “Their inclusive approach to governing sends a signal to others that all voices must be present in order to get things done for the people they serve.”

Democrats flipped seven governorships in 2018, bringing the total number of states under Democratic leadership to 23. Breaking up the GOP’s hold over multiple state governments will make it harder for those states to enact legislation that endangers the LGBTQ community or limits access to health care.

Here are six states where new Democratic governors have issued executive orders expanding health care, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ rights since taking office last month.

California

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s predecessor, Jerry Brown, was also a Democrat who worked to expand health-care coverage and protect reproductive rights. Already, California’s new governor has made it clear that he plans to continue down the same path.

Newsom’s first official act in office was centered around health care—specifically, lowering prescription drug and health-care costs. The executive order he signed the day he was sworn in tasked his Department of Health Care Services with negotiating the pricing and purchasing of prescription drugs so that public and private purchasers don’t have to negotiate with drug companies themselves. Assembly Health Committee Chair Jim Wood told Kaiser Health News last month that negotiating prices could save the state hundreds of millions of dollars that could go toward insurance subsidies or coverage for young unauthorized immigrants.

Newsom’s state budget proposal also seeks to expand Obamacare subsidies for health-care coverage and create the nation’s most generous paid parental leave policy by guaranteeing six months of partially paid leave. He also called for the state’s Medicaid program to cover undocumented immigrants up to the age of 26. Undocumented youth were previously only eligible until the age of 19.

Illinois

One week after taking office, Gov. J.B. Pritzker issued an executive order on the anniversary of Roe v. Wadedeclaring his commitment “to ensuring that Illinois is the most progressive state in the nation for protecting women’s reproductive rights.” His directive moved to ensure the state government complies with a law signed by former Republican governor Bruce Rauner in 2017 that removed provisions of the state’s “trigger law” and allowed abortion coverage in Medicaid and state health plans.

Pritzker’s order guarantees that state employees’ health insurance covers abortion. According to local news outlet WQAD, the new governor’s directive acted “to make sure state departments are complying with the law.” A circuit judge dismissed a lawsuit by anti-choice groups seeking to stop the law from taking effect, and an appellate court upheld that dismissal last fall. Pritzker said he was “concerned” that the law wasn’t being properly enforced for state employees, as the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

When it comes to protecting or expanding abortion access, Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, explained that it’s rare for governors to use their executive powers. “Governors haven’t used their authority in this way very often. Obviously, we’ve seen it on the other side,” Nash said, pointing to South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster’s 2017 executive order directing state agencies to stop funding medical practices affiliated with abortion clinics.

“Illinois made its changes before [Pritzker] became governor, and that took several years … to get that bill through the legislature,” Nash said. “This is one way to put your stamp on an issue.”

While Pritzker’s order focused on better enforcing the existing law, it also allowed him to highlight where he stands on the issue.

“This executive order will ensure there are no barriers to women exercising their right to choose under state employee group health insurance plans,” Pritzker tweeted in January. “Access to reproductive health care is a right—for women of all incomes, for women in all areas of our state, and for women with both private and government-funded health insurance.”

Kansas

Gov. Laura Kelly’s first official action after taking office in January was to ban anti-LGBTQ discrimination against state employees. The executive order, signed on January 15, states that no state agency shall “discriminate, harass, or retaliate against an individual in employment” on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or other factors such as race and religion. The order reversed former Republican governor Sam Brownback’s 2015 repeal of a previous iteration of the ban and extended the protections to state contractors.

“In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need executive orders like this,” Kelly told reporters at a January news conference, according to the Associated Press. “It’s important that, until we become a perfect world, that we make sure that we’ve got the kinds of things in place that move it towards perfection.”

Kansas’ first two openly LGBTQ state lawmakers are now working to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by all employers in the state. Kelly has indicated she would sign the bill if it reaches her desk.

Maine

Gov. Janet Mills’ first executive order fulfilled her campaign promise to expand Medicaid. State residents voted for expansion in 2017, but former Republican governor Paul LePage refused to implement it and fought expansion in court. The lawsuit ultimately only delayed when Maine residents could sign up for MaineCare health insurance, as Mills began implementing the expansion as soon as she took office.

“Expanding health care and lowering the cost for Maine people and small businesses is a top priority of my administration, and I look forward to working with the Legislature to achieve that goal,” Mills said in a press release.

Later that month, Mills reversed her predecessor’s attempt to enforce work requirements for Medicaid and require people to pay premiums if they only use Medicaid for family planning services. LePage’s proposal had already been approved by the Trump administration, but Mills informed the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that the state would no longer accept the terms of the pending Medicaid waiver.

“Making sure people are healthy is the first step in making them eligible for work,” a spokesperson from Mills’ office said in an email to Rewire.News last month.

Michigan

Michigan’s new governor took the same stand against LGBTQ discrimination as Kansas. In an executive order issued her first month in office, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer put into place additional LGBTQ protections for state employees by prohibiting any type of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The protections also extended to state contracting, grants, and loan programs.

“The State of Michigan must be a model of equal opportunity—reaching out to people, knocking down barriers, treating everyone fairly, and dispelling prejudices that hold Michigan and its residents back,” the January 7 directive reads.

The move was praised by LGBTQ organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which noted in a January press release that Michigan is one of 31 states that lack “fully inclusive, comprehensive statewide non-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community.”

“Elections matter,” HRC Michigan State Director Amritha Venkataraman said in the press release. “In one of her first actions as governor, pro-equality champion Gretchen Whitmer has extended long overdue non-discrimination protections to members of the LGBTQ community.”

Wisconsin

Gov. Tony Evers took action last month to fulfill his campaign promise to increase access to health care. In one executive orders, Evers called for the state’s Department of Health Services to develop a plan to expand Medicaid. In a second executive order, he directed state agencies to protect people with pre-existing conditions.

Evers’ directives didn’t actually expand Medicaid, as he would need the approval of Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature to do so. But they sent the message that his administration is committed to finding ways to improve access and affordability.

“Giving more people access to healthcare is a no-brainer,” he tweeted January 22. “My budget will seek to expand Medicaid—providing care to more people while saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.”

In another executive order, Evers prohibited state agencies from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or other factors such as disability or political affiliation.

“Discrimination in any form is wrong, and through his actions today—signing his first executive order since taking office — Governor Evers continues to demonstrate that he will fight day in and day out to uphold the Wisconsin values of fairness, justice and equality,” HRC Wisconsin State Director Wendy Strout said in a January press release.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2019/02/18/six-newly-elected-democratic-governors-are-moving-enact-agenda/

Anti-abortion advocates have been misleading the public. Beth Vial sets the record straight.

“In 2019 we shouldn’t be fighting for the presumption of innocence when a woman loses a pregnancy.”

Evelyn Hernández Cruz, inside the gates of the Ilopango Women’s Prison in El Salvador on Friday, hugging her mother while her father looks on.
Jorge Menjivar

Evelyn Hernández Cruz, 21, was released from the Ilopango Women’s Prison in El Salvador on Friday after 33 months of incarceration for charges of aggravated homicide after she experienced an obstetric emergency in April 2016 during which her baby died. She still faces a re-trial on April 4 of this year on the same charges, but she was granted release under alternative measures to imprisonment as she awaits retrial.

The Agrupacion Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto, or Citizen Group for the Decriminalization of Abortion, in El Salvador has supported her throughout her ordeal and has maintained that she was unjustly accused and convicted. Twenty-two other women remain incarcerated on similar charges related to the country’s absolute ban on abortion.

Hernández’ legal team appealed the original conviction from July 5, 2017, as reported by Rewire.News, but it was upheld in August 2017. Upon appeal to the Criminal Court of the Supreme Court of Justice, that court annulled the original conviction on September 26, 2018, on the grounds that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the conviction. The evidence submitted in the original trial demonstrated that her baby died from meconium aspiration, which occurs when a newborn or fetus aspirates its first feces produced before birth. This can take place before, during, or after birth, and is not a process that the pregnant person can control.

After annulling the decision, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court, which ruled in December 2018 that a new trial must be held, but specified that a different judge must hear the case. But Hernández remained incarcerated, which violated Salvadoran law that prohibits holding an accused person more than 24 months in prison without a final resolution to a case.

In the Court’s decision, which Rewire.News has reviewed, attorney Bertha De Leon argued that Hernández’ right to the presumption of innocence and her right to liberty were violated by her continuing incarceration. De Leon requested that Hernández be released on alternative measures while awaiting her new trial. De Leon’s request was granted on February 14, and Hernández was released on February 15.

Under the alternative measures, she is required to maintain the same residence, stay in the country, and be present for her new trial scheduled for April 4.

The Agrupacion contends that Hernández’ case is part of a pattern in which young women, living in marginalized conditions and lacking access to adequate health care and sexual education, are criminalized by state institutions when they arrive seeking emergency medical care at public hospitals after experiencing obstetric emergencies. The organization continues to fight to free the other 22 women currently imprisoned with similar cases.

Mariana Moisa, communications coordinator of the Agrupacion, spoke with Rewire.News about the effects of the court’s decision to annul Hernández’ original conviction. Moisa said:

There are huge benefits from this decision from the High Court that can help other women in similar cases. They are listening to the legal argument that women are being accused of serious crimes under circumstances that are very unclear. They acknowledge that for Evelyn, and indirectly other women, too, it is extremely difficult to show that there was an intention to do harm on the part of the woman.

This decision also shows that there are some changes in the judicial system. Until recently it was just a given that all these women were bad people. Now there is a window of doubt on that view. It’s a sign that Salvadoran society is changing. Even a year ago one of the major newspapers was publishing terrible stories about Evelyn, pages of horrendous accusations. Now, stories leave open the possibility that women like Evelyn could be innocent.

The downside to the decision was that the court could have absolved her at that point, and they didn’t. Now she still has the uncertainty of the April 4 trial.

On this day of celebration for Hernández’ freedom, Moisa also pointed out the dangers of normalizing this struggle. She warned, “What we have to watch out for as we celebrate, rightfully, each time a woman is freed from prison, is that this struggle does not become normalized. We don’t want to naturalize this fight because it exhausts us, it wastes resources that we shouldn’t have to use. This is not a normal situation.”

Moisa explained how the law hasn’t always been this way. “Only when the law changed in 1997,” when the legislature reformed the law to prohibit all abortions, “did we start to see normal occurrences as crimes,” she said.

“In 2019 we shouldn’t be fighting for the presumption of innocence when a woman loses a pregnancy. We shouldn’t have to be proving that motherhood is not related to crime. We should have full human rights as Salvadoran women,” said Moisa.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2019/02/15/woman-detained-after-obstetric-complications-released-from-prison-in-el-salvador/

When Ohio legislators in December passed the heartbeat bill, which would make abortions illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, former Gov. John Kasich’s refused to sign it into law.

But state legislators — who came one vote short of overriding Kasich’s veto — are giving new life to the bill, which is expected to pass in March. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a pro-life Republican, has already vowed he will “absolutely” sign the controversial legislation. The bill is being introduced in both houses by Republicans, in the state Senate by Kristina Roegner and in the House of Representatives by Ron Hood and Candice Keller.

Both sides of the abortion debate are preparing for the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Roegner said the heartbeat should be the new standard, not the viability of the fetus.

“The presence of a heartbeat is a universally recognized sign of life,” Roegner argued Wednesday. “If government exists to protect the weak and vulnerable, then the point when that begins should be clear.”

The law, formally known as the Human Heartbeat Protection Act, could ban abortions as early as six weeks — or before most women know they are pregnant — as supporters point to how medical technology can now detect the preborn child’s heartbeat that early.

“Ultimately, this will work its way up to the United States Supreme Court,” DeWine told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt last month. “And they’ll make that decision.”

The Ohio Planned Parenthood chapter slammed the bill as soon as it was announced.

“The early introduction of the SB 23, the unconstitutional six-week abortion ban, highlights the misguided and dangerous priorities of our state legislators. This bill seeks to ban abortion before most people know they’re pregnant,” the group wrote. “It’s shameful.”

Ohio Right to Life, which was previously neutral on the legislation, has pegged the bill as their top legislative priority.

“A detectable heartbeat is the clearest indicator that life is present,” Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, said in a statement. “Ohio law should recognize this reality and protect unborn babies with a heartbeat. Ohio continues to lead the nation in advancing pro-life policy…we believe that the Human Heartbeat Protection Act is the next step in our incremental approach to end abortion-on-demand.”

A similar bill that passed in Iowa was struck down by a judge because it violated the state’s constitution.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ohio-reintroduces-heartbeat-bill-with-new-pro-life-governor?fbclid=IwAR0cJXYuJYjPjt0qXauIsmu7phC_OzBxkmGVfZxeeltWjX0Xo1zmu31BkSY

South Carolina lawmakers have introduced legislation that seeks to criminalize abortion and make women and their doctors subject to felony charges if they receive or perform the procedure. Their efforts mark the latest state-level push to restrict access to abortion as politicians across the country prepare for a potential overturn of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court.

State Senator Richard Cash and state Representative Josiah Magnuson separately introduced “personhood” legislation to South Carolina’s legislature this session. The House bill specifically seeks to “establish that the right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization.” By defining the beginning of life at fertilization, the proposals would effectively prohibit abortion, granting that the unborn can’t be “deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws.” The Senate bill matches that language.

Magnuson’s law makes exceptions for when the mother’s life is at risk, and specifically clarifies that the bill would not impact access to birth control methods. Cash’s legislation has similar exceptions, but it also proposes that having or performing an abortion be deemed a felony, referring to abortion as “the shedding of innocent blood.”

However, the bills would not take effect — even if they become state law — unless the Supreme Court moves to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which prohibited states from banning abortion prior to fetus viability. The landmark ruling secured a woman’s right to access the procedure across the U.S., regardless of state.

Cash, in a telephone interview with CBS News, said that the purpose of his bill was twofold. First, if passed, the legislation could be used to challenge the high court’s ruling on abortion access, potentially prompting an overturn of the original decision. Second, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, South Carolina would already have anti-abortion laws in its books, making the procedure immediately illegal, Cash said.

“We’re always hopeful in moving the needle and challenging the way people think about the killing of unborn children,” said Cash, who has spent his entire professional career fighting against abortion. “There’s a need and urgency to do something at the state level and not just wait for someone else.”

Elizabeth Nash, a senior states-issue manager at Guttmacher, called it “very concerning.”

“This bill could have some momentum given the political climate,” she told CBS News.

Cash’s bill was introduced and referred to committee Wednesday, according to the state legislator’s website. Magnuson’s was introduced and referred to committee in January.

South Carolina lawmakers, including Cash, have introduced several “personhood” measures in the statehouse in previous sessions, but all have failed to pass.

Magnuson did not immediately respond to calls and voicemails requesting comment.

With a Republican White House and increasingly conservative Supreme Court, some believe that the days of Roe v. Wade may be numbered. During a 2016 presidential debate, then-candidate Donald Trump said he foresaw the ruling being overturned if he were elected because he planned to appoint pro-life judges. He stressed the issue again in a speech before the 2018 midterm elections.

The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear a direct challenge to Roe. But if it eventually does, and if a majority of the justices vote to overturn that precedent, it would be up to individual states to determine whether to restrict or outlaw abortion within its borders.

The proposals in South Carolina are similar to laws passed in other states. Voters in Alabama approved a state ballot measure in November that amended the state constitution to include that its policy was to protect “the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.” The legislation also clarified that the state’s official stance on abortion was to “ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate.”

In the event that justices overturn Roe v. Wade, the law would immediately take effect and outlaw pregnancy-ending procedures. Two other states — Kansas and Missouri — have similar “personhood” laws in place that would go into effect if Roe is overturned.

In blue-leaning states, politicians have gone the other direction, successfully passing laws that dramatically expand a woman’s access to abortion. In New York, lawmakers passed the “Reproductive Health Act” last month which allows for abortions after 24 week if the fetus is not viable or if there is a risk to the mother’s health.

Last week, Virginia’s embattled Governor Ralph Northam expressed his approval of a sweeping Virginia abortion bill that would expand abortion access in the state by eliminating a 24-hour waiting period. It would also allow the procedure to take place in non-hospital settings if it is performed during the second trimester, and widen availability to third-trimester abortions in the event that the mother’s health is at risk.

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Trump took aim at the hot-button issue, vowing to end late-term abortions while asking Congress to “work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.”

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-abortion-law-criminalizing-abortion-roe-v-wade-overturn-2019-02-07/?fbclid=IwAR3dEfeDUP4UT4bHiH_fLqrIGPjlwkKrx-Kyp15rwwVh47PliDT2__vuV4U

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

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

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

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

Understanding Louisiana’s Abortion Law

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

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

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

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

Chipping Away at Roe

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

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

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

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

Anti-Life, Anti-Choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safeguarding Roe protections in the states 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuits challenge ‘physicians only’ anti-choice laws 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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