All Women's Health & Medical Services

#abortion #rights This Abortion Provider Appreciation Day, Get to Know the People Who Make Abortion Care Possible https://abortion-blog.com//this-abortion-prov...ider-appreci/ We show up every day for our patients because we know that when people are able to make their own decisions about if, when, and how they create families, we build stronger, healthier, and happier communities, said one development director of an abortion clinic. There are myriad paths to reproductive health, rights, and justice work. For AJ Haynes, it involved margaritas and a cover band, as any good story should. Haynes, a counselor for the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, Louisiana, explained to Rewire.News on Tuesday that about ten years ago, she had a cover band to help pay bills as she worked toward a bachelor of arts in English and communications. At the time, Hope’s late founder and clinic owner, Robin Rothrock, had a Christmas party every year. This particular year, Rothrock wanted to have a band. And so we played at the party, Haynes said. Afterward, I was just hanging out and having margaritas with Robin. I don’t even know what we were talking about [But] like you do over margaritas, you have a come to Jesus with yourself, so I was like, ‘I need a job, more jobs, because I’m broke.’ Rothrock responded: Do you want to come and work for the clinic?’ After Haynes said yes, Rothrock explained that Hope is an abortion clinic. She asked Haynes what her thoughts were on abortion. I had never thought about it before, but my response was: ‘I believe that women should have dominion over their bodies.’ And that was that, Haynes said. She started working there the Monday after the Christmas party. I don’t know what other people’s processes are in coming to this work, but it was pretty A + B = C to me, she said. Haynes explained to Rewire.News that growing up, she received a comprehensive sex education from the women who raised her. There was never any guilt or shame or stigma around sex. It was always a matter of health and agency, in that noin my caseno man should tell me what to do with my body, ever, and that pleasure is OK; we get to celebrate our bodies. Because I was raised that way, it was a very easy sell on abortion care: The ultimate expression of freedom of our bodies is having the ability to have access to things that we need to make choices, said Haynes. Ahead of National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers on March 10, we at Rewire.News wanted to spotlight people like Haynes who make abortion care possible. These are the people who escort patients from their cars to the clinic’s front door across a parking lot or sidewalk that is often crowded with anti-abortion protesters, and who take calls from prospective patients whomay have to wait a week or more for an appointment in one of the six states with only one clinic left due to restrictive anti-choice laws. These are also the people who open clinics, fundraise to keep them open, physically protect patients and other providers, and yes, perform medication and surgical abortions. Specifically, we wanted to hear from them about what they wanted others to know about their work and why they provide abortion care. Here are their responses, lightly edited for clarity. Name: Andrea Ferrigno, corporate vice president Clinic Location: Whole Woman’s Health, an independent abortion provider with locations in Texas, Maryland, Minnesota, Illinois, and Virginia Being an abortion provider is what allows me to fulfill my mission to contribute whatever little I can to make someone’s world or day better. Being able to have open, honest conversations about the complexities and stigma surrounding abortion is what keeps me grounded. Hearing the stories our patients share with usstories of resilience, deep senses of responsibility, and love for themselves, their dreams, their current children, and future familiesis what has made this work my mission in life, what has helped create my vision for what health care should look like, and what a just world should look like. The things I want the world to know about abortion providers and the people that have abortions I have already said. What I’d like to do today is invite people to get to know abortion providers and to open their minds and hearts to hear from the people who are willing to share their abortion experiences. Name: Katie Quiñonez, development director Clinic Location: Women’s Health Center of West Virginia in Charleston I work as an abortion provider because I believe this is the most important work there is. I have had two abortions in my life, and the experiences had a profound effect on me. My abortions were opportunities for me to take control of my life and create the future I wanted for myself. I am truly the person I am today because of my abortions. Abortion is a very normal part of many people’s reproductive lives, and I am honored to work alongside my colleagues to ensure our patients receive quality, compassionate health care free of judgement and shame. I want the world to know that abortion providers are heroes. Period. We work tirelessly to ensure that people are able to make the best decisions for their health, their lives, and their futures. We face harassment and intimidation on a regular basis, but we will not be deterred. We show up every day for our patients because we know that when people are able to make their own decisions about if, when, and how they create families, we build stronger, healthier, and happier communities. Name: Jamila Perritt, MD MPH FACOG Clinic Location: Maryland and Washington, D.C. The decision to have a baby or not, is one of the most monumental that any family can make. It changes EVERYTHING. For those who are fortunate enough, it can mean unparalleled joy and excitement for the future, but for others it can be just one more thing that guarantees a life of poverty, want, and abuse. This right should not be shrouded in secrecy or veiled in shame. It should not be debated in the halls of Congress or used a tool for political gain. My job allows me to be an agent of change for each person I care for and care about. The ability to control one’s own fertility means planning, preparing, deciding for yourself. I do this work because I know how important it is for someone to have a say-so in the direction their life is headed. I do this because it matters. I do this because it’s important. How could I not? Abortion providers are activists, advocates, parents, healers, and dreamers. We are united in our belief in agency, autonomy, and self-determination. We care for our mothers, our sisters, and our friends. We care for our neighbors, our co-workers, our daughters. We are united in our work and share in the privilege and honoring of caring for those who need us. This work is an honor and a privilege. Name: Tammi Kromenaker, director Clinic Location: Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota I do this work because of the women we serve. They deserve the highest quality care and we strive every day, even in this very hostile, red state to provide that. It is an honor to be a part of their reproductive health care. Abortion providers are just like our patients; we are your sisters, your mothers, your friends, your neighbors. We care deeply about the patients we serve and the teams we work with. We are on the front lines ensuring bodily autonomy and dignified abortion care. Name: Colleen McNicholas, DO MSCI FACOG Clinic Location: St. Louis, Missouri; Wichita, Kansas; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Columbia, Missouri As an OB-GYN, I believe that it is both my moral and ethical responsibility to provide abortion carea service that one in four women will need in their life. As a woman, I am acutely aware of the impact of gender inequity. Being able to decide if one wants to parent and if so, when to do so, is fundamental to people being able to dream of an education, career, and family life. As a mother, I have had the honor of knowing the great joy but also the terrible pain that can come with parenting. The magnitude of the responsibility of a decision to parent can only be understood by the person making itand because of this, I strongly believe the only person qualified to make the decision is the pregnant person in the context of their specific life and social circumstances. Abortion providers are some of the most dedicated and empathetic clinicians I have known. They so deeply care for their patients and above all value the opportunity to help them live their best lives based on their values. Name: AJ Haynes, counselor Clinic Location: Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, Louisiana I feel like my work in abortion care is a way to honor the women that made sacrifices for me to be able to have the vantage points that I have as an artist. I am a counselor, but I’m also in a touring band. We’re getting ready to release a record later this year! So the clinic has at once been a place for me to discover my voice to celebrate my body and other people’s bodies, and a way for me to pay my bills to facilitate me continuing to be an artist, and my art is informed by my experience. And there is no way to draw lines there. Everything about my art informs how I treat my patients, and everything about how I treat my patients and what I learn informs my art. Working in abortion care is just another way for me to say ‘thank you’; it’s an expression of gratitude to all of the people who make these sacrifices. I want people to know that we are already part of their community whether we’re accepted or not. We provide the highest quality, highest caliber of patient care, and we do it with love and compassion. And we will continue to do it, even in this climate under the amount of scrutiny and bureaucratic, bullshit red tape, and stigma and fear that is part of so much of our culture; we’re not going anywhere. We’re whole human beings, trying to help other human beings be whole and get free. We’re seeing people in their most vulnerable state, and we’re just here to help them become strongerwhichever decision they choose. [I just know] this is where I’m supposed to be in this life at this time. It is challenging in ways that keep me up at night, but I just have to remember that I have to take care of my body. We can’t be out here celebrating other people’s bodies and not our own. Kat Jercich contributed to this reporting. Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com//this-abortion-provider-appr/

#abortion #rights ‘We are at war’: Poles mark Women’s Day after abortion rules tightened https://abortion-blog.com//we-are-at-war-poles-mark-women/ WARSAW (Re...uters) Poles took to the streets on Monday to mark International Women’s Day, in demonstrations around the country that took on added significance months after a constitutional court banned almost all abortions. The October ruling, which took effect in January, unleashed a wave of protests that has morphed into broader anger at the government, particularly among young people. Recent protests have been much smaller, but the ruling party’s ratings in most opinion polls have slipped to around 30% from more than 40% in August. In Warsaw, several dozen protesters brandishing placards with slogans such as I am a feminist warrior gathered in the city centre, where they were outnumbered by a heavy police presence. Previous protests organised by the Women’s Strike movement, which opposes the tightening of restrictions regarding abortion, have been marred by violence, with the police criticised for heavy-handed tactics. It is difficult to say anything positive about Women’s Day today. We are at war and all I can hope for is that we will win the war, Klementyna Suchanow, co-founder of the Women’s Strike told Reuters before the demonstration began. Women’s Day in 2021 has a specific flavour, she said. After the abortion regulations were tightened, this holiday takes on the significance of a battle, just like in the beginning when it was first established, over a 100 years ago. As police formed a cordon around the protestors, speech therapist Aleksandra Gajek, 24, called it an intimidation tactic. The number of police is intended to scare us and force us to stop fighting for our rights, she told Reuters. The police was trying to keep traffic moving, spokesman Sylwester Marczak said by phone. The actions of the police are determined by the blocking of traffic on one of the most important roundabouts in Warsaw. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2B029T

#abortion #rights ‘Historic day for women’ as abortion officially decriminalised in South Australia https://abortion-blog.com//historic-day-for-women-as-abor/... Abortion advocates have welcomed the passage of laws to decriminalise the procedure in South Australia. South Australia is the latest Australian jurisdiction to formally decriminalise abortion, after the state’s upper house ticked off new laws. The passage of the Termination of Pregnancy Bill on Tuesday came after the lower house in February passed the legislation 29 votes to 15. It was then sent back to the upper house for final approval, which has now occurred. Under the changes, abortion will be treated as a healthcare issue, not a criminal one, in line with other states including Victoria, Queensland and NSW. It can be performed by one medical practitioner up to 22 weeks and six days gestation. After that time, a medical practitioner can only perform an abortion if they consult with another practitioner and if both are of the view that the procedure is medically appropriate. Those circumstances could include if a life is at risk, if there’s a serious foetal anomaly or a serious risk to a patient’s physical or mental health. ‘Historic day’ Attorney-General Vickie Chapman said the passage of the legislation was a historic day for the women of South Australia. It’s been a long and, at times, ugly journey, but finally we have modern termination of pregnancy laws, which make abortion a health issue, not a criminal one, she said. This legislation makes explicit the higher standard of medical care and decision making that already exists in South Australia. Advocacy group Fair Agenda said the bill was an important step towards ensuring everyone could access the healthcare they needed, when they needed it and where they needed it. A patient might need to end a pregnancy for any number of deeply complex and personal reasons, spokeswoman Renee Carr said. The bill was subject to a conscience vote in both houses with MPs opposed to the legislation successfully securing a number of amendments. These included a ban on sex-selective abortion and a requirement every patient be provided with information about counselling, regardless of their situation. While opponents to the legislation remained concerned with provisions allowing for late-term procedures. The Human Rights Law Centre said the passage of the bill in SA means only Western Australia still uses criminal law to regulate abortion. It is time for the Parliament of Western Australia to follow in the footsteps of South Australia and bring their laws into line with every other jurisdiction in the country by removing all barriers to timely reproductive healthcare, spokeswoman Monique Hurley said. Source: https://www.sbs.com.au//historic-day-for-women-as-abortion

#abortion #reproductive #rights What It’s Like Being a Black Leader in the Abortion Movement https://abortion-blog.com//what-its-like-being-a-black-le/ After ...announcing Friday she will be stepping down as head of the National Network of Abortion Funds in 2022, Yamani Hernandez reflects on her legacy. In 2015, Yamani Hernandez earned trailblazer status when she became the first Black executive to head the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF), a collection of more than 80 independent organizations that work to remove barriers to abortion care. At the time she assumed the role, NNAF had a budget of $2.3 million and a staff of 12; under Hernandez’s leadership, the organization has grown fivefold, driving greater awareness of the vital work done by abortion funds. Next year, however, Hernandez will be leaving NNAF, which she calls the biggest, best thing I’ve ever been a part of. In this interview, which has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity, Hernandez shares the thinking behind her decision, the lessons she’s learned, and her hopes for the next generation. Rewire News Group: Let’s start with the obvious. Why step down now? Yamani Hernandez: There’s a shift happening at the organizationan intentional shift that we’ve been building toward and that I’m excited about. We’ve been preparing for a more restricted policy environment, and so we’ve set out the last year or so to scale abortion funds so they have a lot more of the resources they need to get people care. Right now, trying to get funds for an abortion, it’s like crowdfunding, where you have to call multiple places and piece the funding together. We have a vision that abortion funds will be fully staffed and can say yes to every caller with fewer hassles. There’s a huge opportunity for someone to lean into this next chapter of what a scaled network looks like. It’s time to pass the mic on to that person. That person has big shoes to fill! You are a groundbreaker in abortion advocacy leadership. Can you talk about what that distinction means to you? YH: When you’re in the role it’s hard to think about that; you’re just getting it done and doing the best you can! But I certainly knew the significance of it, and how much organizational change was going to have to happen within a predominantly white environment, both within the organization and the network [of abortion funds]. And it’s interesting: Any kind of first Black leaderor any black leader in a setting that is not an all-Black or all-POC environmentwill say that’s an extra aspect of the job. You have your regular job duties and then this huge culture-change piece that’s a long-term project. Because culture change doesn’t get solved with one leadership change. But it’s certainly a start. Talk more about the added pressure you felt as a Black leader. Because so often we’re asking one person to carry the weight for an entire group of people, which can be not only unfair, but exhausting. YH: I have heard from a lot of Black leaders and people in this movement who feel like me being in this position has meant something to them. I’m really touched by that. But it’s also a lot of pressure to make sure you’re showing up in the ways people expect you to. One thing I say all the time is just because you hire a Black person doesn’t mean that person is a racial justice equity expert or trainer, but you still get, Oh, you’re Blackso these bad things will never happen. And I think we can sort of create this mythology around having a Black leader, giving that person almost superheroic traits, and that part is really hard because when you don’t do something perfectly it feels like you’ve let someone down. There’s a thing happening right now that’s like, Let Black women lead everything, and I think that’s beautiful on the one handbut on the other, I think that putting people on pedestals is a very dangerous thing, because falling off a pedestal is very painful, for everybody. So it’s important to recognize the humanity of leaders. Especially when it seems like there are new, unprecedented challenges cropping up all the time, like COVID-19. YH: Which is why it’s important to recognize that leaders are human beings, too! I’m a parent, and I’ve been working less since online school started because I can’t do that and work at the same time. I’ve had to acknowledge that I’ve been more distant because I’ve been mama! And then there are other things, too, that happen to us as leaders of abortion organizations that are just brutalpeople saying insidious things about you online, that your children see. This work comes at a cost. It’s a huge opportunity, and I’m so proud, but it’s important to recognize the sacrifices people make in order to contribute to the movement. What are some of the big priorities NNAF’s new leader will need to tackle? YH: We need to close the gap between people who call abortion funds and the people who answer those callswe want people who call to see themselves in the people answering the phone. We don’t think of this work as charity; maybe decades ago that was the prevailing value behind it, the idea of helping people, but we see this work differently now. And that is: People should not feel shame and stigma when calling for help, because what they’re experiencing is an injustice. What they’re experiencing is the government refusing to do its job to help and support the people who live and work in this country. And so who would you like to see step into your role? YH: My ultimate dream is that someone who called an abortion fund would lead the network. Because it would be the ultimate example of this thing we say all the time: building the power of people who are most impacted. When you think back on the goals you set for yourself coming into this job, how would you evaluate your performance? YH: I wanted to organize us as a national organization with expertise and strategies in each of the areas our members needed support inand we have departments now! A membership department, a communications department, a systems department to handle tech assistanceour members are really getting the value of being part of a network. I’m also proud to say that one-third of our budget goes to our members, which is a testament to our values: We’re working hard to pass through our resources and make our members stronger, which is really our purpose. Then there’s the change we’ve seen in the value people place on abortion funds. There’s less talking about them as scrappy organizations and more recognition of their expertise and strategy on the ground, as important touchpoints with getting care, and with their local policy work. We support the All* Above All campaign to get cities and states voting to fund abortion, and I’m proud to see that growth. In 2019, when the Alabama abortion bans happened, that was a huge cultural moment for us; you had Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton calling to get people to support abortion funds, understanding that there’s this robust ecosystem of organizations that make up abortion care and access. Looking back, are there any clear lessons you’ve learnedor mistakes you think folks should avoid repeating in the future? YH: Investing solely in policy solutions has not worked. Like right now, we’re so excited for how close we are to repealing the Hyde Amendment, but once Hyde is repealed there are still a ton of barriers to abortion access. The pandemic has been really helpful for people understanding that things like mutual aid and community care need resourcing. We can’t prioritize policy over getting people care; it has to be a both/and strategy. You’re raising two children. When you think about the world they’ll inherit, what kind of reproductive and sexual health-care future would you like them to have? YH: What a beautiful question! I hope they’re inheriting a world that has less hassle and hustle and pain associated with their sexuality, and, more broadly, with their health care. That there’s just a ton less stigma and shame. When I think about generational change, comprehensive sexual education is an underfunded, underrecognized vehicle to some of the things we want most for society. When you hear lawmakers talk about abortion, or sexual assault, or pregnancy, the things they say are so out of touch with realityyou know they haven’t taken sex ed or just don’t know how bodies work! There is so much ignorancesome it is willful, and some of it lyingbut a lot of people don’t know because they weren’t taught or they were taught in abstinence-only settings. I’m hoping my grandchildren get to grow up in a world that has sex ed as a normal part of school, and that parents feel more empowered and knowledgeable talking about it, and that there’s less violence and harm around sex and sexuality. More ease. More peace. Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com//what-its-like-being-a-black-/

#abortion #rights Idaho House OKs legislation to defund abortion providers https://abortion-blog.com//idaho-house-oks-legislation-to/ BOISE, Idaho (AP) The ...House on Tuesday passed legislation that would halt public funding to any entities that advise women about their abortion options. Lawmakers voted 55-14 to send to the Senate the bill supporters say would stop some women from obtaining abortions. The bill would bar all public funding to any entity including schools, public health departments and other health care providers if anyone associated with the entity provides an abortion, assists someone in getting an abortion, or even counsels a patient that abortion is an option they could seek out. It allows exceptions for hospitals, cases where the mother’s life is in danger and cases involving Medicaid transactions, which are governed by federal law. A federal law called the Hyde Amendment already bans federal dollars from being used for abortion services, with small exceptions. The bill would also stop public money going to other services like contraception or cancer screenings if the provider also offers abortion counseling. The bill defunds abortion so your tax dollars and mine are not used directly or indirectly for any type of abortion or referral for such services, said Republican Rep. Bruce Skaug, one of the bill’s sponsors. If I could stop Medicaid funds from going to abortion, I would. Opponents said it would stop many women from getting cancer screenings, birth control and other health care by shutting down providers like Planned Parenthood. Some lawmakers opposed the legislation because it didn’t outright ban all abortions. Democratic Rep. Chris Mathias opposed the legislation, saying he was concerned the bill denied healthcare coverage to thousands of Idaho residents because the facilities they use provide an occasional, constitutionally protected abortion. Idaho is a state with healthcare shortages, he said. We don’t have enough primary care physicians. We don’t have enough nurses. We don’t have enough hospitals in the right places. We don’t have enough beds. We don’t have enough people with health insurance or enough health insurance to get them the adequate care that they need. Source: https://apnews.com//legislation-medicaid-bills-idaho-laws-

#abortion #rights Arkansas Senate approves bill banning nearly all abortions https://abortion-blog.com//arkansas-senate-approves-bill-/ The Arkansas Senate ha...s approved a measure banning nearly all abortions in the state, despite objections to it not allowing the procedure for victims of rape or incest LITTLE ROCK, Ark. The Arkansas Senate on Monday approved a measure banning nearly all abortions in the state, despite objections to the ban not including exceptions for rape or incest. The majority-Republican Senate approved the ban on a 27-7 vote, sending the measure to the majority-GOP House. Arkansas is one of 13 states where outright abortion bans have been proposed this year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. The bans are being pushed by Republicans, encouraged by former President Donald Trump’s appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, who say it’s time to test where the high court stands on overturning the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Arkansas is asking and pleading that the U.S. Supreme Court take a look at this and make a decision that once again allows the states to protect human life, Republican Sen. Jason Rapert, the bill’s sponsor, said before the vote. The bill advanced days after South Carolina’s governor signed into law a measure banning most abortions. Planned Parenthood immediately sued challenging the measure. Arkansas’ bill only excludes abortions to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency, and supporters of the measure rejected calls from supporters of past anti-abortion restrictions to include rape or incest. In this bill, we’re going to tell a 12-year-old rape victim that because we believe so strongly in the right to life, she’s going to have to carry that baby to term regardless of the consequences it does to her or her family or her life, Sen. Jim Hendren, who left the Republican Party last week, said. Hendren effectively abstained from voting on the measure, casting a present vote rather than voting yes or no. Republican Sen. Missy Irvin said the legislation was disenfranchising people that are pro-life that believe rape and incest should be a part of this bill because their loved ones were raped. Irvin, however, ultimately voted for the measure. The bill passed on mostly party lines, with Sen. Larry Teague the only Democrat voting for it and Senate President Jimmy Hickey the only Republican opposing it. Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson has also said he has concerns about the bill, citing a letter written by the attorney for National Right to Life that said the chances of the legislation leading to overturning Roe v Wade were very small and remote. National Right to Life has not taken a position on the bill, though its state affiliate supports the measure. Hutchinson on Monday stopped short of saying whether he supports the bill, but said he backs exceptions for rape and incest. It makes sense to add the exceptions because if you are going to do a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, then it is important to have exceptions that the public generally supports, he said in a statement. Abortion rights supporters said they’re prepared to challenge Arkansas’ measure if it becomes law. Democratic opponents warned it could lead to women pursuing more dangerous methods to end their pregnancies. It’s bad enough, but it’s far worse if you won’t put the (rape and incest exceptions) on the bill, Democratic Sen. Joyce Elliott said. Source: https://abcnews.go.com//arkansas-senate-approves-bill-bann

#abortion #rights Abortion Is a Catholic Value. Just Ask Joe Biden. https://abortion-blog.com//abortion-is-a-catholic-value-j/ Joe Biden needs to embrace his ...identity as the nation’s first pro-choice Catholic president. From the media coverage of Catholics during the 2020 presidential campaign, you’d think that the only ones who voteor perhaps the only voters who matterare ordained men obsessed with abortion. The results of the November election show, however, that the majority of Catholics did, in fact, vote for the nation’s first pro-choice Catholic president. It’s often said Catholicism is a big tent religion, and it’s certainly true of Catholic voters. We’re a diverse group, reflecting a broad range of political and demographic categories. But the fact is, abortion simply isn’t a top priority for the vast majority of Catholic voters, and when asked, they will tell you that they, like President-elect Joe Biden, don’t want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. A national survey of Catholic voters, conducted from October 26 to November 3 by polling firm GBAO, found that their votes were driven not by the abortion debate but by concerns about the economy, health care, and the raging COVID-19 pandemic, the same issues cited by much of the broader electorate. As far as reproductive health is concerned, Catholics are nearly twice as likely to vote for a candidate who supports access to safe, legal abortion than a candidate who doesn’t, and they overwhelmingly reject the practice of denying Holy Communion to Catholics who support abortion access. Of the 70 million Catholics in the United States, only 300 are bishopsso we ask that policymakers listen to the people in the pews a bit more than the celibate men in the pulpit. Biden and the 117th Congress should know that Catholics in the United States not only support safe and legal abortion access but also believe that insurance companies should be required to offer plans that include birth control coverage and support in-vitro fertilization, as well as the use of stem cells in the development of medical treatments. We also think that no one should be denied the abortion care they need because they’re enrolled in Medicaid or other public health insurance programs.Using abortion rights as a bargaining chip to reach common ground is too often put on the table when a Democrat wins the White House. The intersection of reproductive health and poverty doesn’t stop at the U.S. border. The Trump administration’s unprecedented expansion of the Reagan-era global gag rule, which forbids foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal family-planning aid from performing or providing information about abortion, is an egregious example of how values not shared by a majority of Americans, or even most Catholics, are used to control pregnant people around the globe. Far from serving people in need, Trump’s expanded version of the gag rule has already done profound damage to providers, community health workers, and, of course, anyone in need of comprehensive reproductive health care. The sick are sicker and the poor are poorer because of it. In a New York Times op-ed last month, Michael Wear, who served in what was then the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships during the Obama administration, suggested the Biden administration go slow on overturning the global gag rule. Such a move, he said, would both make religious conservatives feel less embattled and help Biden signal that he is uninterested in promoting a new round of culture wars. I’m not sure Wear realizes how cruel and craven his suggestion is. The gag rule has done untold harm to the bodies of pregnant people who should not be forced to suffer another minute because of an ideological battle waged largely by white, wealthy hierarchs, legislators, and pundits. Catholic social justice doctrine teaches that caring for the poor and marginalized should be our first priority. Denying anyone reproductive health care of any kind is to deny them of their human rights. Overturning this oppressive policy is a matter of life or death. Biden has said his Catholic faith is the basis of his belief that everyone is entitled to dignity and that the poor should be given special preference. But I worry about the extent to which he’ll act on that promise. Using abortion rights as a bargaining chip to reach common ground is too often put on the table when a Democrat wins the White House. Culture warriors like the bishops will never be appeased, so those of us who care about justice should stop trying. We will proudly welcome our pro-choice Catholic president on January 20. But we implore him to fully embrace that identity, which would not only acknowledge the millions of U.S. Catholics who agree with and voted for him but also support the fundamental humanity of pregnant people everywhere. He has the mandate and the faith. He needs to act on both. Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com//abortion-is-a-catholic-valu/

#abortion #rights How the Hyde Amendment Hearing Can Affect the Future of Abortion Rights https://abortion-blog.com//how-the-hyde-amendment-hearing/ Reproduct...ive rights and justice organizations weigh in on the historic House hearing. Over the course of more than four decades, Congress has annually renewed the Hyde Amendment, a highly controversial measure that reproductive rights activists say keeps abortion inaccessible to marginalized communities. That could all change, however, as the House Appropriations Committee held a historic, virtual hearing yesterday on the disproportionately negative impacts of the amendment. Simply put, the Hyde Amendment broadly bars federal funding for abortion costs, meaning Medicaid recipientswho overwhelmingly come from communities of color or low-income communitieslack abortion coverage. Since the measure’s 1976 passing, Congress has extended the amendment to also apply to federal employees and their dependents, Native Americans, immigrants, Washington, D.C., residents, Peace Corps volunteers, those who are incarcerated or held in immigration detention facilities, and military personnel, according to Planned Parenthood. A 2009 report from the Guttmacher Institute found that 25 percent of women who who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable. The fight to end the Hyde Amendment has been a long one, spearheaded by women of color and organizations like All* Above All, which kicked off the #BeBoldEndHyde movement. Now, as the movement builds on unprecedented support for the measure’s repeal, and as Joe Biden and Kamala Harrisboth of whom have publicly rejected the provision, though Biden only recently rescinded his support of the amendment during the 2019 Democratic primary presidential raceprepare to enter the White House come January, some activists are hopeful for the future. Biden and Harris also join a growing number of elected officials, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and incoming Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro, in supporting an end to the provision. To fully grasp the destructive reach of the Hyde Amendment and the building momentum to finally eliminate it, BAZAAR.com reached out to All* Above All’s co-director Destiny Lopez and some of the testifiers at the historic House hearing: Dr. Herminia Palacio, the president and CEO of Guttmacher Institute; and Dr. Jamila Perritt, the president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health. Read on to learn more about what they had to say about the next frontier in the battle for reproductive freedom. What is the Hyde Amendment? Jamila Perritt: The Hyde Amendment is a discriminatory policy that blocks those relying on federally funded health programs from getting coverage for abortion care. This includes people receiving their insurance coverage via Medicaid, the military, the Indian Health Service, people receiving care in federal prisons and detention centers, D.C. residents, federal employees, and Peace Corps volunteers. It is a rider to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, and Congress has voted to pass the annual spending bill with this rider attached almost every year since its passage in 1976. Destiny Lopez: For 44 years, anti-abortion politicians have used the Hyde Amendment to deny insurance coverage of abortion for people who are enrolled in Medicaid. Since it was initially passed in 1976, the harms of the Hyde Amendment have been extended to also deny abortion coverage for federal employees, Native and Indigenous people, women in detention, and residents in Washington, D.C. The Hyde Amendment is one of the prime examples of why Roe v. Wade, which established legal abortion in the United States, has never been enough for people working to make ends meet. Herminia Palacio: By design, the Hyde Amendment targets people with low incomesand, in particular, people of color with low incomesfor harmful and discriminatory treatment. For 44 years, the Hyde Amendment has denied abortion coverage to people enrolled in Medicaid. Removing such blatantly coercive, racist, and demeaning language is a critical step toward ensuring people can get the abortion care they need. manhattan, new york, united states 20191005 pro choice protesters picketed outside the church where anti abortion groups gathered abortion rights activists from a number of organizations held a demonstration outside of the basilica of st patricks old cathedral in soho, where congregants meet on the first saturday of every month before marching to the planned parenthood clinic on bleecker street to pray, and to allegedly harass and intimidate patients as they enter the clinic photo by erik mcgregorlightrocket via getty images An abortion rights protester holds a sign that reads, Rest in Power Rosie Jiménez, killed by the Hyde Amendment. Jiménez died in 1977, a year after the amendment’s passing, due to an illegal abortion.ERIK MCGREGORGETTY IMAGES How does it disproportionately affect Black and Latinx communities, and other marginalized communities? DL: The Hyde Amendment falls hardest on communities who are already marginalized by our health care system, and disproportionately impacts Black, Indigenous, and people of color by denying them the ability to control their lives, bodies, and futures, and to live with dignity and economic security. The impact of the Hyde Amendment is now compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in job loss and economic insecurity, exacerbated health inequities, and killed Black, Latinx, and Native people at vastly disproportionate rates. It’s also important to recognize that Hyde, like police violence, wage gaps, inequities exposed by COVID-19 this year, is rooted in systemic racism that denies the humanity of Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and the ability to thrive in their own communities. We also know that when politicians restrict Medicaid coverage of abortion, they force one in four poor women seeking an abortion to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. And when a woman wants to get an abortion but is denied, she is more likely to fall into poverty. JP: Barriers to abortion care like the Hyde Amendment disproportionately impact those who already face the most barriers in our health system, including Black women, Indigenous women, other people of color, young people, transgender and nonbinary people, LGBTQIA people, and those living in rural communities. Especially in the midst of a pandemic that is inequitably impacting communities of color, it is more important than ever that we address the historically racist policies denying people access to basic, essential health care. HP: The harmful burdens of the Hyde Amendment are intentionally and unjustly imposed on Black and Brown people, and on people with low incomes. In other words: people who have been historically marginalized. Because of the legacy of systemic racism in this country, Black and Brown women are disproportionately likely to be insured through Medicaid: 31 percent of Black women and 27 percent of Hispanic women aged 15 to 44 are enrolled in Medicaid, compared with 16 percent of white women. As our country undergoes a racial reckoning, I want to be clear: The Hyde Amendment is a racist policy. As our country undergoes a racial reckoning, I want to be clear: The Hyde Amendment is a racist policy. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries, with dramatic but preventable racial inequities. Black and Indigenous women’s maternal mortality rates are two to three times the rate of white women. Reflect on these overlapping and perverse indignities: The Hyde Amendment disproportionately withholds abortion coverage from Black and Brown communitiesa potential consequence of which is being forced to continue a pregnancy in a system in which Black and Indigenous people are astonishingly more likely to die. What is the status of Hyde right now? DL: While the Hyde Amendment remains in the current federal spending bill, the momentum to end it once and for all has never been higher. On the federal level, the EACH Woman Acta groundbreaking bill, led by U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth in the Senate and U.S. representative Barbara Lee in the House, that would ensure public and private coverageis up to 207 co-sponsors. Earlier this year, U.S. representatives Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Barbara Lee, and Jan Schakowsky filed an amendment to strip Hyde from the federal spending bill, and as she said this week, U.S. representative Rosa DeLauro has committed to ending the Hyde Amendment in next year’s federal spending bill. Locally, elected officials have declared their support for abortion coverage, and lawmakers in cities like Austin and New York have stepped up for the second consecutive year to dedicate funding within their city budgets to practical support for abortion care. Maine and Illinois are the latest two states to ensure insurance coverage for abortion for folks in their respective states. The majority of national voters62 percentsupport Medicaid coverage of abortion. HP: Across 34 states and the District of Columbia, the Hyde Amendment leaves seven million women who are already struggling financially without abortion coverage. On average, an abortion at 10 weeks costs around $550, which could be someone’s entire rent payment. And the cost increases over time. Contrast that with the fact thateven before the current recession37 percent of Americans said they would struggle to cover an emergency expense of $400, for any purpose. JP: While the Hyde Amendment is currently in place, Congress and the BidenHarris administration have an opportunity to end the Hyde Amendment by ensuring a clean budget, passing clean appropriations bills, and moving forward with legislation like the EACH Woman Act. The EACH Woman Act would prohibit politicians from interfering with personal health care decisions through sneaky coverage restrictions that deny people struggling financially the ability to get the affordable abortion care they need. Abortion care should be made accessible to all people regardless of where they live or how much they make. Pregnant people and their families should have full access to the care they need as decided only by themselves with support from medical providers, not politicians.ADVERTISEMENT CONTINUE READING BELOW On average, an abortion at 10 weeks costs around $550, which could be someone’s entire rent payment. And the cost increases over time. Why is the House’s December 8 hearing on the amendment so important? DL: This week’s hearing has been years in the making, all thanks to the power, strength, and voices of women of color who have been leading the movement to end the Hyde Amendment for decades. The hearing also demonstrates the strong commitment from elected officials to end the Hyde Amendment in next year’s federal spending bill. We also heard from three powerhouse women of color who are dedicated to ending abortion coverage bans and fighting for the dignity, well-being, and economic security of the folks that they serve. This week’s hearing has been years in the making, all thanks to the power, strength, and voices of women of color who have been leading the movement to end the Hyde Amendment for decades. HP: Looking ahead to the 117th Congress and the Biden administration, the historic significance of this hearing on the Hyde Amendment cannot be overstated. Congresswoman DeLauro was selected by her colleagues to chair the full Appropriations Committee starting next year, and we are especially encouraged by the clear commitments she and her subcommittee colleagues have made to lift the harmful and discriminatory Hyde Amendment and support abortion coverage for all. JP: We have ignored the real, devastating harms of the Hyde Amendment for decades. When people don’t have access to the abortion care they need, their well-being and the well-being of their families and communities are negatively impacted. It was an honor to testify alongside my colleagues Dr. Herminia Palacio and Amanda Beatriz Williams as we collectively shared the harms of the Hyde Amendment and our vision for a future where all people can access the health care they need, no matter the source of their insurance. What happens if Congress decides to lift the Hyde amendment? JP: When we end the Hyde Amendment, abortion care will be treated like the basic, essential health care it is. Insurance coverage of abortion should be comparable to other essential health care services. Abortion should not be singled out for exclusion or have additional burdens placed upon it. DL: Ending the Hyde Amendment in the federal spending bill helps ensure that people working to make ends meet can get the abortion care that they need, and gets us one step closer to a future where each of us can live, work, and make decisions about our health and our future with dignity and economic security. When we end the Hyde Amendment, abortion care will be treated like the basic, essential health care it is. We are also calling on President-elect Biden to demonstrate his commitment to ending Hyde by introducing a presidential budget without this policy, and appoint cabinet nominees that have a strong commitment to protecting and expanding reproductive health care, economic justice, and racial justice. HP: Repealing Hyde is a necessary step to dismantle systemic racism and ensure that our public policies support bodily autonomy and safe, healthy communities. Repealing the Hyde Amendment would mean greater equity in insurance coverage for abortion, and it would be an important step in making abortion care more available for those who want and need it. But the fight to protect and expand abortion rights and access does not stop there. Both federal and state policymakers must do much more to roll back harmful restrictions and short up and expand abortion rights. What happens if it doesn’t? HP: Hyde would continue to pose a major barrier to accessing care for people with low incomesand an insurmountable one for many of them. Abortion patients include people of every race, religion, political affiliation, and socioeconomic group, and the majority are already parents. One in four cisgender women in the United States will have an abortion in their lifetime. Likewise, trans men and gender-nonconforming individuals require access to the full range of pregnancy-related care. Overall, 75 percent of abortion patients in the United States are low-income, and the majority are people of color. Many people with low incomes experience delays accessing abortion care because of the time and effort needed to pull together funds. People get caught in a cruel cycle, in which delays associated with raising the money leads to additional costs and subsequent delays. pro choice campaigners at a march for womens equality in washington, dc, 9th april 1989 one placard reads keep your laws off my body photo by barbara alpergetty images A sign at a pro-choice rally reads, Keep your laws off my body.BARBARA ALPERGETTY IMAGES A literature review conducted by Guttmacher concluded that among women with Medicaid coverage subject to the Hyde Amendment, one in four who seek an abortion are forced to continue the pregnancy. Forcing someone who wants an abortion to continue a pregnancy is not only a violation of their reproductive autonomy; it is tantamount to requiring them, against their wishes, to accept the risks of pregnancy- and labor-related complications, including preeclampsia, infections, and death. JP: We will continue to operate under a two-tiered system of health care where some people get the health care they need and others don’t. This is absolutely egregious, and we cannot accept health care access being dictated by one’s income, socioeconomic status, and zip code. DL: If Congress does not act and end the Hyde Amendment, people struggling financially and who are already marginalized will continue to bear the brunt of this harmful policy. We are calling for a future where each of us can live our lives with dignity, respect, and economic security, and the women of color who have led this movement from the beginning will continue our work until Hyde is no more. We are calling for a future where each of us can live our lives with dignity, respect, and economic security. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. 12/11/20: This story has been updated to include answers from All* Above All, an organization that has been instrumental in the fight to repeal the Hyde Amendment. Source: https://www.harpersbazaar.com//a3490/hyde-amendment-facts/

#abortion #rights The Reproductive Justice and Rights Movement Is Fighting Back https://abortion-blog.com//the-reproductive-justice-and-r/ President Trump is ...leaving office having appointed three Supreme Court justices, with abortion rights in the balance, and abortion access severely limited in some parts of the country. Yet the reproductive health justice movement has been mobilizing to fight back. There was a significant surge in state-level abortion restrictions starting in 2010 that has never really slowed down, so responding to these attacks on access in so many places is unfortunately the new normal, said Julie Gonen, policy director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. And this past summer, the COVID-19 crisis created an opportunity for anti-abortion lawmakers to halt abortions as nonessential, providing a glimpse of what a post-Roe world will look like, said Julie Burkhart, founder and CEO of Trust Women, an advocacy organization that has clinics in Wichita and Oklahoma City. Some governors issued executive orders banning abortion statewide, including in Texas and Oklahoma. Trust Women’s clinics were overrun, with staff working 12- to 18-hour days. We saw a 400% increase in patients seeking abortion care, and we had people traveling from Houston all the way to Wichita to get an abortion, said Burkhart. The clinic closings due to the pandemic and the wave of extreme abortion bans in 2019 necessitated putting forward the basic message that abortion is still legal in all 50 states, said Ann Marie Benitez, senior director of government relations at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. With all the misinformation, disinformation, fake clinics, and anti-abortion officials playing politics with people’s lives, we must ensure that folks in our communities understand that very crucial message abortion care is legal in the entire country. Despite more than 450 state-level restrictions put in place since January 2011, organizations and activists have adapted strategies to not only sustain the movement to keep abortion accessible and available, but make it stronger. Reproductive justice advocates have insisted on having a place at the table and pushed the broader movement to expand its vision beyond simply protecting the legal right to abortion, said Gonen. The voices of young people, people of color, and those who have had abortions have been better amplified. While we can’t stop advocating for better legislative and judicial protection of the right to access reproductive health care, we do better when we link arms with other movements, like those seeking to secure access to health care more generally and those, like NCLR, working to ensure equality for LGBTQ people. In addition to coalition-building and working to create a more inclusive movement, advocates have been amplifying the pro-choice religious community, promoting personal storytelling about abortion, and researching language around abortion care to create impactful messaging. There are also increased efforts to raise awareness about the nation’s 70-plus abortion funds, which are unified through the National Network of Abortion Funds. Cost and travel are major barriers to accessing abortion care, and abortion funds are an increasingly crucial resource for low-income women, especially in rural areas and in states with few or even one clinic. Abortion funds are mutual aid funds we literally use money donated from people who believe in the right to an abortion and want to support people who are being denied health care by the government, said Kamyon Conner, executive director of Texas Equal Access Fund, which provides funding to low-income women in northern Texas. COVID showed us that we are in a unique position to provide a direct link between abortion providers and women seeking abortion care. And this spring, when clinics were being closed in Texas, abortion providers were relying on us for support to assist people in need of abortion care. Not only do the funds help cover the cost of an abortion, they can help with transportation and child care. One of the beautiful things about abortion funds is how they have always been deeply creative and connected in developing solutions, said Steffani Bangel, executive director of the New Orleans Abortion Fund. We have, for years, learned from each other about the best ways to continue to facilitate access for our communities despite political and structural attacks on our rights. Advocacy organizations have been putting resources into polling and research to better understand views on abortion. After conducting research in 2019, NARAL Pro-Choice America now uses freedom to decide rather than right to choose in their materials. We found that language around freedom from political interference and freedom to make personal decisions resonated with people, said Kristin Ford, national communications director at NARAL. This messaging especially resonated with people who have personal conflicts with abortion but they feel uncomfortable with the government interfering in personal decisions. This language is more in line with what other political movements use it’s not about personal identity, such as saying you are pro-choice, but around your beliefs. We are seeing a shift, and the broader Democratic party and progressive movement has now coalesced around abortion rights as a nonnegotiable position. Abortion is increasingly seen as foundational right and that it’s impossible to talk about a living wage, etc., without being able to make your own decisions about parenthood and pregnancy. A national survey of Catholic voters in the 2020 election found that they are nearly twice as likely to vote for a candidate who supports access to abortion care than candidates who want to make it illegal. We were a part of the coalition that elected Biden, said Jamie Manson, president of Catholics for Choice. What we have seen in this election is that the religious left is the sleeping giant of the pro-choice movement, and we saw a resurgence of it this year. There is a lot of activism among Catholics on the ground, and we are trying to organize people and engage them to be part of the larger reproductive justice movement. We have a president and we have lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who are specifically appealing to their Catholic faith to support their ideas of social justice. That is something we want to leverage. We are also looking at the language that we use the word ‘choice’ is great for women who have choices, but not everyone does. Since 2012, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice has conducted annual polls of Latino/a voters and found a majority would support a loved one who decided to have an abortion despite some narratives in the media that depict the community as conservative on the issue. The Road to Reproductive Justice: Native Americans in New Mexico, a report by Forward Together, investigated stereotypes around Native Americans used by anti-choice legislators to falsely promote the narrative that most are against abortion due to cultural and religious beliefs. Instead, the report found that a large majority of Native Americans hold respectful and complex views on abortion and trust women to make their own decisions without government interference.We have been working to de-polarize the public’s point of view on abortion by promoting the message that abortion care is health care and that women be allowed to make the decision about having an abortion themselves, said Adriann Barboa, New Mexico policy director at Forward Together. We’ve done polling that shows people are more likely to agree to statements about women being left to decide about abortion care for themselves with their loved ones than ones about supporting abortion itself. [New Mexico] is one of the poorest states in the country, and people don’t have a lot of options in many parts of their life, so ‘my body, my choice’ doesn’t resonate. Nearly one in four women has an abortion, and advocates believe their stories should be told and out in the open. Abortion doesn’t occur in the abstract, and abortion restrictions affect real people, said Gonen. The more people tell their stories about their own abortions, about their experiences providing abortion care, about how their own families have been affected by government-imposed restrictions the more the issue is humanized and the more people will realize that forced pregnancy is reprehensible in a nation that claims to value freedom. Earlier this year, the Black Women’s Health Imperative put out its Black Women Vote: National Health Policy Agenda, a blueprint for the health and wellness of Black women, which they will continue to use to hold elected officials accountable for delivering on abortion rights and reproductive justice, said Kineta Sealey, policy counsel. We have worked really hard to reach women of color, especially those who may lack access to accurate information and those who reside in the South. It all comes back to education and facts. We have to keep our eyes on the ball on everything from calling for the FDA to lift restrictions on access to medical abortion to passing the EACH [Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance] Woman Act. And President-elect Joe Biden will face pressure to fulfill his campaign promise to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits public funding of abortions. Even though the majority of Americans believe in the legality of abortion rights in this country, there is a disconnect with some of those voters, said Burkhart. We still lack the ability to reach the middle in certain areas of the country that of Republicans and rural voters in particular. The political divide that we have between Democrats and Republicans most definitely contributes to this dynamic, as abortion rights are voted on, primarily, right down party lines, when in reality, the women having abortions are not just urban, liberal, Democratic voters. This is where some of the disconnect lies. The restrictions over the past decade have only ignited us, said Benitez. We know that the courts will not save us, Roe cannot save us; we must organize and mobilize our communities to hold our elected officials accountable to ensure access to safe, affordable abortion care for everyone. We have seen the disparities in health outcomes across the board, never more evident than now during this pandemic. Who better to lead the fight for equal access to reproductive health care than those hardest hit by the repercussions of that inequality? The lived experiences of women of color have been ignored for far too long. It is time we put women of color front and center and look to our communities to lead the fight for justice. Source: https://womensmediacenter.com//the-reproductive-justice-mo

#abortion #rights What Is ‘Late-Term Abortion’? Here’s What Politicians MeanAnd Why It’s Not Medically Accurate The inflammatory phrase seeks to politicize a s...ituation that can cause unimaginable suffering for pregnant people. The political focus on abortion later in pregnancy does not reflect the medical reality and disproportionately impacts those who find themselves in need of critical healthcare." There’s a lot of disinformation about abortion later in pregnancy, so here’s what you should know to combat these anti-choice attacks. https://abortion-blog.com//what-is-late-term-abortion-her/ Opponents of abortion have long tried to stigmatize the medical procedure, but in the past few years, they’ve targeted abortions performed in the second and third trimester. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have repeatedly claimed that Democratic lawmakers support late-term abortions done up to the moment of birth. Doctors, meanwhile, have repeatedly explained that they do not perform abortions while people are in labor, or in the days before their due date, but the talking point persists. My patients didn’t ask to be spoken about this way, they didn’t ask for their health care to be politicized, and they’re the ones that are suffering the most from all of this, Jen Villavicencio, MD, MPP, an ob-gyn and abortion provider in Michigan and the Darney-Landy Fellow at the American College of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, tells Health. Inflammatory language like ‘late-term abortion’ is used to deflect the conversation away from the safe, legal provision of compassionate medical care to patients, Dr. Villavicencio says. Here, ob-gyns and abortion providers cut through the political talking points and focus on the facts regarding abortions later in pregnancy. This is what you need to know. What do politicians mean when they say ‘late-term abortion’? In short, it’s a sensationalized phrase that doesn’t reflect science or medicine. While people may have heard physicians use late term in a medical setting, it refers to women in the 41st week of their pregnancy, that is, women who are still pregnant after their due date, and no abortions occur during this time period, Dr. Villavicencio says. Physicians instead say abortions later in pregnancy or later abortions, or simply refer to the trimester when the procedure happens. What is a later abortion, and how often does it happen? It depends on who you ask, but generally later abortions are those that happen after a specific point in pregnancy (for example, beyond 20 weeks or in the third trimester) or after a fetus is viable, which is thought to be at about 24 weeks though that’s not a hard and fast rule. There is no magic switch that flips in the same week of every pregnancy after which that fetus is viable; viability is determined by a physician on an individual basis. Abortions in the second trimester are most often done via a procedure known as dilation and evacuation, or D&E, where the cervix is dilated either with medication or seaweed sticks known as laminaria that swell and open the cervix, and then the pregnancy is removed through the cervix using instruments. Abortions in the third trimester, which are a very small number of procedures, involve inducing labor, Daniel Grossman, MD, and ob-gyn and abortion provider and a professor of obstetrics at the University of California San Francisco and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), tells Health. These later abortions are rare: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2016, just 1.2% of abortions were performed at 21 weeks of pregnancy or later. Another 7.7% were done from 14 to 20 weeks, while the vast majority, 91%, were performed at or before 13 weeks. Put another way, this means 98.7% of all abortions happen before 21 weeks. Dr. Grossman says there isn’t great data on the breakdown of procedures after 21 weeks but, he says, it’s clearly much less than 1% past 24 weeks. Given that these later procedures are so uncommon, Dr. Villavicencio says: The political focus on abortion later in pregnancy does not reflect the medical reality and disproportionately impacts those who find themselves in need of critical healthcare. Why do people get later abortions? There are several reasons why people have later abortions, and they generally fall into two categories. It’s either due to some new information that has come about during their pregnancy or a result of barriers that exist to getting abortion, Dr. Villavicencio says. The new information category includes learning something about the health of the fetus or the pregnant person, but it also encompasses people not realizing they’re pregnant until later on. This can happen because they’re using birth control, they have irregular periods, or they’re young and not aware of pregnancy symptoms, Dr. Grossman says. Dr. Villavicencio says she’s had abortion patients who are grandmothers and didn’t think they could get pregnant. Late recognition of pregnancy is not unusual, and certainly not a fault of someone for not knowing. Unless you’re taking a pregnancy test every single month, which no one does, it’s very easy to miss a pregnancy, she says. Fetal health problems could include a malformation of the fetus or genetic abnormality that means the fetus won’t survive. But these problems often aren’t diagnosed until later in the second trimester or into the third because the screening tests and scans don’t pick these problems up until that late, Dr. Grossman says. The special ultrasound that’s colloquially known as an anatomy scanwhere the fetus is large enough that doctors can see the heart, brain and spineisn’t usually done until 18 or 20 weeks, but can be as late as 23 weeks, based on the availability, where a person lives, or even what’s going on in their life, Dr. Villavicencio says. Then if the scan does pick up something concerning, people need time to get a specialist appointment for a second opinion. Similarly, people can develop dangerous health complications in pregnancy that may not emerge until the later second trimester or early third trimester. Two examples are pre-eclampsia, or high blood pressure later in pregnancy that can become life-threatening, and placenta previa, when the placenta is covering the opening of the uterus and can cause severe bleeding during pregnancy. The treatment for these conditions is delivery and C-section, respectively, Dr. Grossman says, but if the patient is still in their second trimester and the fetus isn’t viable, abortion is sometimes the best option for their health. Barriers to accessing care can also push people who want abortions to get them later in pregnancy. These obstacles include living far away from an abortion clinic thanks to anti-abortion clinic shutdown laws, facing a medically unnecessary state-mandated waiting period of 24 to 72 hours that requires multiple trips to a clinic, and the costs associated with that travel such as gas, hotel stays, childcare (60% of people seeing abortions already have kids), and unpaid time off from work. Plus if you’re having an abortion procedure rather than getting the abortion pill to take at home, you might need someone to travel with you, Dr. Villavicencio says. Another is the cost of the procedure itselfan average of just over $500 at 10 weeks in 2014which may not be covered by health insurance, especially for people living on low incomes who have Medicaid. Thanks to the 1976 Hyde Amendment, the federally funded Medicaid program can only cover abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s life. States can use their own funding to cover the procedure, but only 16 do so while 34 states and Washington, DC, stick to the federal standard, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because of structural racism, Black and Latinx women are more likely to have Medicaid insurance and are thereby less likely to have the procedure covered. The price of the procedure is, of course, added to any travel costs mentioned above. That is a real, real barrier for many patients, Dr. Grossman says. [The Hyde Amendment is] a common reason why people end up presenting for care in the second trimester because it took time for them to get the funding together to be able to pay for the abortion. And the later an abortion is, the more expensive it is, so the problem snowballs. By contrast, in a 2012 study in the American Journal of Public Health, Dr. Grossman found that in the two years after Iowa made early medication abortions easier to access through a telemedicine program, that people were almost 50% more likely to have a first-trimester abortion while second-trimester abortions declined, even after controlling for other factors. I think there’s a lot of evidence showing that these restrictions can push people later in pregnancy and increase the likelihood that they’ll get a second-trimester abortion, and conversely, that efforts to expand access to early abortion can help to reduce second-trimester abortion, Dr. Grossman says. Which states restrict later abortions? Forty-three states ban abortion after a specific gestational age, with 17 banning it after 20 weeks, while seven states do not have gestational limits, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Under the Supreme Court rulings Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, states can only ban abortion after the fetus has reached viability, meaning it could survive outside the womb, as long as there are exceptions to save the life and health of the mother. That framework means state bans after viability don’t have to permit exceptions for people who faced barriers to getting care or those whose fetuses have severe anomalies. Of the 17 states with 20-week bans in effect, 13 lack exceptions for lethal fetal anomalies, meaning people who want abortions in those cases would have to travel out of state. States that have passed bans before viability have typically done so in an effort to provoke a Supreme Court challenge, per Guttmacher. Gestational age bans also ignore the medical reality that some pregnancies will never be viable. What do politicians mean when they talk about babies born alive in abortions? President Trump has also repeatedly claimed that doctors are delivering healthy babies and then executing them, which does not happen. There are rare cases where the fetus has been diagnosed with a severe condition that is clearly incompatible with life. After counseling with their medical team and specialists, some patients choose to induce labor, knowing that the fetus will not survive after delivery, and offer comfort care. This is called perinatal palliative care and it’s an accepted medical practice, Dr. Grossman says. Sometimes people choose to induce labor rather than having a D&E procedure because they want to hold their baby or because the labor process will be cathartic for those who were preparing to deliver, Dr. Villavicencio says. Dr. Villavicencio says these are heart-wrenching, tragic situations where the decisions made are no different than other end-of-life careit’s just that this is at the other end of the spectrum of life. Families are deciding whether they want to take futile steps like intubation and CPR or let their loved one pass away peacefully. But crucially, it is not medical dying and it’s not physician-assisted suicide and it is not hastening the death of anyone in any way, she says. This is purely a way to offer as much comfort as possible while the inevitable occurs. These are not abortions of healthy pregnancies. This is not ‘hey by the way, I forgot I want an abortion.’ They’ve had conferences with the neonatal intensivists, with the obstetricians, with the pediatricians, with the palliative care team to discuss how and when this palliative birth is going to occur, Dr. Villavicencio says. If [politicians] were being honest about what they were talking about, they wouldn’t be talking about ‘moment of birth,’ because that’s not when the abortion decision is being made. Source: https://www.health.com/condit/pregnancy/late-term-abortion

#abortion #rights Mississippi Tees Up a Ridiculous Abortion Rights Claim Just for Amy Coney Barrett https://abortion-blog.com//mississippi-tees-up-a-ridiculo/... With abortion foe Amy Coney Barrett newly minted as a Supreme Court justice, we’re bracing for impact. I have a question. Is Mississippi OK? Not the people in Mississippi. There are lots of good people in Mississippi. But I mean public officials in Mississippi. Like the governor. And the attorney general. And basically any attorney representing Mississippi in court. Because not only have they ignored my plea to stop filing Supreme Court petitions, they actually upped the ante by filing a supplemental brief containing legal arguments (please read those quotation marks as sarcastically as possible), which supposedly explain why the state’s unconstitutional 15-week gestational ban is actually constitutional. In making its legal arguments, Mississippi blabbers on for seven blissfully short pages, managing to cram in a lot of bullshit about cases that have nothing to do with Mississippi’s case. And frankly, it’s starting to make me lose my mind a bit. Mississippi’s case, Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Dobbs, is about a 15-week gestational ban, yet another flavor of pre-viability abortion ban anti-choice numpties like to cook up. Under current abortion law, pre-viability abortion bans are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that states cannot outright ban abortion before viability. Everyone agreesMississippi’s lawyers includedthat no fetus is viable at 15 weeks. Mississippi’s law is therefore unconstitutional. Period. That’s why the district court struck it down. And that’s why even the extremely conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck it down. But Mississippi doesn’t have to convince the district court or the Fifth Circuit that its legal arguments are sound. Mississippi has to convince the Supreme Court, where a new justice was installed on the bench just yesterday to destroy access to health care, including abortion care. If Mississippi’s lawyers give newly minted Justice Amy Coney Barrett an abortion turd, she’ll find a way to polish it into an abortion stone. So, what did attorneys for Mississippi do last week as Barrett’s nomination was barreling through the Senate? They filed a nonsense supplemental brief discussing how the federal courts have been ruling in recent cases involving TRAP laws (targeted regulations of abortion providers). TRAP laws are laws that regulate only abortion providers. Mississippi’s abortion ban is not a TRAP law. An abortion ban is a law that well bans abortionlike Mississippi’s 15-week ban. In cases involving TRAP laws, courts have to do an undue burden analysis. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case almost as foundational to abortion rights as Roe v. Wade, requires it. And right now there’s a live fight about what kind of undue burden analysis courts need to do, thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts leaving a ticking time bomb in his concurring opinion in June Medical Services v. Russo this summer. Roberts may have helped Louisiana clinics stay open in the short term, but his ruling will likely end up wiping out clinic access across the country. It’s already being used to wipe out access in Kentucky. But none of this should have anything to do with Mississippi’s case. Mississippi’s case is about a pre-viability ban. The TRAP law cases are about abortion regulations. There’s no need for an undue burden analysis when it comes to pre-viability bans because they are unconstitutional. But no. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has been desperately trying to get someone to buy her argument that the abortion ban isn’t really a ban. It’s a regulation. And if it’s not a regulation, it’s at most, a partial ban. And besides, Casey doesn’t ban all pre-viability abortion bans! But that’s exactly what Casey does.All of this nonsense is a transparent effort to prime the pump so that when Justice Barrett is seated, Mississippi and every other state controlled by anti-choice forces can float any bullshit argument before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Casey said, viability marks the earliest point at which a State’s interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. A state can start banning abortion after fetal viability. Not before. That’s it. End of discussion. Everyone go home. But Mississippi doesn’t want to go home. Mississippi wants the Court to analyze its pre-viability ban as if it were a TRAP law. If Mississippi can convince a court to apply the undue burden test to all abortion restrictionsincluding already unconstitutional pre-viability abortion bansthen Mississippi’s 15-week ban might stand a chance. After all, you can’t even get an abortion in Mississippi after 16 weeks. Anti-choice legislators in Mississippi have made sure of that. So when you think about it, a 15-week ban is only a burdenif you can even call it thatfor a week. And how many pregnant people will that even affect? It’s too few to even bother counting. That’s Mississippi’s argument. And it might seem like a reasonable one if you ignore what the court in Casey said: Our adoption of the undue burden analysis does not disturb the central holding of Roe v. Wade, and we reaffirm that holding. Got it? The Casey Court reaffirmed the holding of Roe. And what is that holding, pray tell? Regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability. One more time! A State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability. Nuh-uh, says Mississippi in court documents filed with the Supreme Court. Regulations designed to foster the health of a woman seeking an abortion are valid if they do not constitute an undue burden. But Mississippi’s law isn’t a regulation. It’s a fucking ban. Well fine, then, Mississippi flounces. It’s a ban. But it doesn’t matter anyway because viability is the wrong standard. It’s outdated. Please, oh please, Justice Barrett, won’t you hear our cries and upend the foundation of abortion rights jurisprudence? (Attorneys for Mississippi didn’t actually say this, but they may as well have since this will be one of the very first cases that Justice Barrett will consider.) Is it obvious that Mississippi is getting on my goddamn nerves? Because Mississippi is getting on my goddamn nerves. All of this nonsense is a transparent effort to prime the pump so that when Justice Barrett is seated, Mississippi and every other state controlled by anti-choice forces can float any bullshit argument before the Supreme Court and be relatively confident that the conservative supermajority, all of whom hate abortion, will buy it. All these states need to do is give the conservative justices on the Supreme Court enough cover so that when they reverse either Roe and Caseyor interpret one or both cases in a way that further guts access to abortion carestates like Mississippi can implement laws that for more than 40 years have been unconstitutional. And with the Supreme Court scheduled to discuss on Friday whether to take this case, Mississippi may get its wish. Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com//mississippi-tees-up-a-ridicu/

#abortion #rights In the Battle Over Abortion, Polish Feminists with Disabilities Are Claiming Their Rights https://abortion-blog.com//in-the-battle-over-abort...ion-po/ In a disturbing irony, Poland’s decision to remove the fetal defect grounds for abortion will have a disproportionately negative impact on the lives and well-being of women with disabilities. On Oct. 22, Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled that Poland’s law permitting abortion on grounds of a severe and irreversible fetal defect or incurable illness that threatens the fetus’s life was unconstitutional. The decision triggered mass protests across Poland and uniting hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life in their concern over the increasing restrictions on women’s rights. This decision effectively bans access to safe and legal abortion for all pregnant persons, including women with disabilities. The Tribunal asserted that removing the fetal defect grounds for abortion would protect the rights of persons with disabilities. To be sure, the intersection of abortion rights and disability rights is complex, especially in an overwhelmingly ableist world. Some disability rights advocates are concerned that laws that expressly permit abortion on grounds of fetal impairment codify the notion that disabled lives are worth less than non-disabled lives. Reproductive rights advocates are concerned that reforming abortion laws to remove fetal impairment groundsor to expressly ban abortion in the case of a fetal impairment diagnosiswill result in less access to safe abortion and exacerbate related human rights consequences for those seeking to terminate their pregnancies, as we anticipate seeing in Poland as a result of this decision. Too often, however, the diverse voices and perspectives of women with disabilities are left out of these debates. Yet, as people who experience ableism, sexism and other forms of discrimination and need to access the full range of sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion, they are uniquely positioned to address this debate’s complexity and bring essential perspectives to this ongoing debate. Indeed, Polish feminists with disabilities have brought powerful dissent and insights to the ongoing protests and discussions about abortion in Polandboth on- and offline. In a recent webinar organized by our organizations, Artyku 6 and Women Enabled International (WEI), together with CREA and Penoprawna, Polish feminists with disabilities stressed that pitting reproductive rights against disability rights discounts the perspectives of women with disabilities and undermines the human rights approach to disability rights as encapsulated in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Furthermore, as WEI has documented, meaningful reproductive autonomy is a priority for women with disabilities all around the world, both as women and persons with disabilities, and access to abortion is an important part of that reproductive autonomyand more broadly of their inherent and inalienable right to dignity. But to exercise reproductive autonomy, people need both the legal right to make decisions about their bodies and lives and an enabling and non-stigmatizing environment in which to do so. Such an environment means that the full range of reproductive health care is fully accessible to all (including financially accessible) and that people can make reproductive health choices without stigma and fear. It also means that pregnant people can receive unbiased information about a fetal impairment diagnosis at all times, including free from bias about the value of the life of a person with a disability, and that the rights of persons with disabilities living in the world are fully respected, protected, and fulfilled. In a disturbing irony, Poland’s decision to remove the fetal defect grounds for abortion will have a disproportionately negative impact on the lives and well-being of women with disabilities. (Abortion and Disability: Towards an Intersectional Human Rights Approach / Women Enabled International) By removing one of the only remaining legal grounds for abortion in Poland while continually failing to ensure an environment that recognizes the dignity of persons with disabilities living in the country, the Constitutional Tribunal ruling fails on many levels to ensure reproductive autonomy or to meet Poland’s human rights obligations. And in a disturbing irony, its decision will have a disproportionately negative impact on the lives and well-being of women with disabilities. Why? Because women with disabilities typically are structurally hindered from accessing education and employment, resulting in lower incomes, so frequently cannot afford to travel abroad for abortion. Women with mobility-related disabilities face additional barriers, as the means of travel are often inaccessible. These inequalities are further exacerbated in the context of the current global pandemic. Put most powerfully by Artyku 6, the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling violates human rights and any respect for the decisions and needs of women, including women with disabilities. Instead, it imposes a limited vision of life and femininity that is contingent on subordination and coercion of women and girls with disabilities. Poland has clear legal obligations under the UN CRPD to protect the rights of persons with disabilitiesincluding to protect the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women, girls, and pregnant persons with disabilities. To meet these international legal obligations, Poland must: Ensure that people with disabilities have access to a full range of sexual and reproductive health care (including abortion where needed). Abolish laws that restrict the legal capacity of persons with disabilities to make their own decisions. Support persons with disabilities to lead autonomous, dignified and independent lives, and ensure that persons with disabilities can access quality education, meaningful employment, and social life. Ensure that persons with disabilities and their families have access to the range of supports and services they may need. Foster a climate where people with disabilities can participate freely as equal and valued members of society. The clock is ticking. Source: https://msmagazine.com//abortion-poland-polish-feminists-/

#abortion #rights Arkansas Could Give Amy Coney Barrett Her Big Abortion Moment (Updated) https://abortion-blog.com//arkansas-could-give-amy-coney-/ The "Unbo...rn Child Protection Act" was filed ahead of Arkansas' next legislative session meant to more directly challenge Roe v. Wade. UPDATE, December 23, 11:15 a.m.: On Tuesday night, a federal judge blocked four anti-abortion laws from taking effect in the state. Amy Coney Barrett has been a Supreme Court justice for less than two months, yet Arkansas lawmakers wasted no time introducing an anti-abortion bill aimed squarely at the Court, whose new conservative supermajority puts the future of abortion rights in serious jeopardy. Advocates have called the Unborn Child Protection Act, introduced in November ahead of Arkansas’ next legislative session, so egregiousparticularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic that continues to ravage the country with no federal relief bill in sight. Arkansas already has a law banning abortion should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade; 20 other states have similiar laws in place. The same lawmaker who sponsored the state’s so-called trigger ban last year, Republican state Sen. Jason Rapert, introduced this latest bill that he said was meant to more directly challenge Roe. He did not return multiple requests for comment. SB 6 would ban all abortion unless a woman’s life was in danger, and like the trigger ban, it has language unusually directed to the nation’s high court. The State of Arkansas urgently pleads with the United States Supreme Court to do the right thing, as they did in one of their greatest cases, Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned a fifty-eight year-old precedent of the United States, and reverse, cancel, overturn, and annul Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the legislation reads. ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Holly Dickson issued a statement calling Rapert’s bill cruel and blatantly unconstitutional. She urged state lawmakers to shelve the bill and focus on COVID-19 relief. Let’s be clear: if passed, this brazenly unconstitutional abortion ban will be struck down in court, and legislators who passed it will have achieved nothing but having wasted taxpayer dollars on an unlawful measure and diverted scarce resources from the urgent needs our communities face in the midst of an ongoing and devastating pandemic, Dickson said. Gloria Pedro, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes’ regional manager of public policy and organizing for Arkansas and Oklahoma, said the bill is the equivalent of a demand letter to the Supreme Court, which is not how the Supreme Court works. And there’s already a trigger law passed, which is why this is so egregious. Patients can access abortion in Arkansas up to the 20th week postfertilization, or 22 weeks’ gestation. There are two clinics in the state, both in Little Rock, though only one provides procedural abortions.Reproductive rights groups conceded there are more anti-choice bills passed every legislative session than could possibly be challenged. Advocates for reproductive rights in Arkansas have had their hands full fighting back against anti-choice legislation over the last decade, with some bills landing in multiyear battles in federal court. Conservatives have long eagerly eyed the Eighth Circuit, a federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Arkansas, as a way to bring a challenge against Roe to the U.S Supreme Court. Back in 2015, Eighth Circuit appellate judges recommended the high court reevaluate its jurisprudence on abortion, and urged for more state discretion over reproductive decision-making. One such challenge began in 2017, after Arkansas legislators passed new laws to criminalize doctors who perform dilation and evacuation (the most common second-trimester abortion procedure) and require a patient inform the person who got them pregnant before they could get an abortion. The ACLU of Arkansas and the Center for Reproductive Rights sued over those laws and additional state restrictions, like requiring doctors to notify local law enforcement when patients under 17 years old seek to terminate a pregnancy. The laws were temporarily enjoined. This past August, a three-person Eighth Circuit panel ruled against the plaintiffs, citing Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurrence in the Supreme Court’s recent June Medical Services v. Russo decision. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law placing hospital admission requirements on abortion clinic providers was unconstitutional, echoing its 2016 position in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. But in his concurring opinion, Roberts argued that while he agreed with his four liberal colleagues that the Louisiana case was virtually identical to Whole Woman’s Health, he believed the undue burden standard used to decide that case was wrong, and should not involve weighing costs and benefits of an abortion restriction when judging its legality. We don’t agree that one justice’s opinion can change the precedent set by Whole Woman’s Health that clarified the undue burden standard requires this balancing standard, said Hillary Schneller, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, who asked the Eighth Circuit to review the decision en banc. (That means the case will be heard before the entire bench of judges, rather than a three-person panel.) Schneller said there’s always a chance a case like this could wind up at the Supreme Court, but for now they’re just waiting on the Eighth Circuit. That wait came to an end Tuesday afternoon when the Eighth Circuit summarily rejected the en banc request in a one-page order. Without further court intervention Arkansas’ restrictions could take effect as soon as December 22. Meanwhile, reproductive rights advocates have also been dealing with harassment related to the pandemic. Arkansas health officials earlier this year sent a cease-and-desist letter to Little Rock Family Planning Services, arguing their procedural abortions were elective and should wait until after the public health crisis ends. State officials also tried to force patients to get negative COVID-19 tests within 48 hours of getting an abortion, even though tests were in short supply. While advocates have successfully fended off some of the worst restrictions, reproductive rights groups concede there are more anti-choice bills passed every legislative session than could possibly be challenged. We can’t challenge every single restriction and those restrictions are continuing to stack on the books, Dickson said. They join together to create substantial obstacles and burdens for patients. There was a 30 percent decline in the Arkansas abortion rate between 2014 and 2017, and according to the state’s health department, 2,963 abortions took place in Arkansas in 2019. Pedro of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes noted that Arkansas has the fourth highest maternal mortality rate in the nation and one of the highest infant mortality rates. In 2016, Arkansas had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country, and public schools in the state still do not provide comprehensive sex education and primarily endorse abstinence-only instruction. It’s not just that these bills take away reproductive rights, which is crucial, but they’re also having a real tangible impact in our state, and things are getting worse, Pedro said. Pedro and Dickson say the most helpful thing would be for residents to pressure their state representatives to avoid wasting energy and resources on more anti-choice bills. Arkansas does not need to fly the trial balloon and be the trendsetter on setting regressive law, Dickson said. We have so many other things that we need our state to focus on. Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com//arkansas-could-give-amy-con/

#abortion #rights Senate to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee a week ahead of Election Day https://abortion-blog.com//senate-to-confirm-trumps-supre/ Sena...te Republicans are poised to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Monday, a major victory for the President and his party just days before November 3, that promises to push the high court in a more conservative direction for generations to come.The stakes in the Supreme Court battle are immense and come at a pivotal time in American politics in the run up to an election where control of Congress and the White House are on the line. Trump’s appointment of a new Supreme Court justice will mark the third of his tenure in office, giving Republicans a historic opportunity to deliver on the key conservative priority and campaign promise of transforming the federal courts through lifetime appointments. Trump is expected to swear-in Barrett at the White House in an outdoor ceremony at 9 p.m., Monday, after her expected confirmation, a source familiar with the invitation tells CNN. Barrett, who is 48 years old, is likely to serve on the court for decades and will give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, a shift in its makeup that will have dramatic implications for a range of issues that could come before it, including the future of the Affordable Care Act and any potential disputes regarding the 2020 election. Senate Republicans, who hold a majority in the upper chamber, have pushed ahead with one of the quickest nomination proceedings in modern times following the death of the late Justice and liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month.They have the votes to confirm Barrett over the objections of Democrats who have argued that the process has been a rushed and cynical power grab that threatens to undermine Ginsburg’s legacy. The Senate is doing the right thing. We’re moving this nomination forward and, colleagues, by tomorrow night we will have a new member of the United States Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday after the Senate advanced the nomination in a key procedural vote to break a Democratic filibuster.The confirmation battle has played out in a bitterly-divided Senate, but the outcome has not been in question for much of the fight. With few exceptions, Senate Republicans quickly lined up in support of Barrett after her nomination by President Trump. All Democrats are expected to vote against the nomination.Two Republican senators crossed party lines to vote with Democrats in opposition to Sunday’s procedural vote Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Collins, who is facing a competitive re-election fight, is expected to vote against the nomination over concerns that it’s too close to Election Day to consider a nominee. Murkowski has already announced, however, that she will ultimately vote to confirm Barrett in the final vote, but said that she would vote against the procedural vote after having previously voiced opposition to taking up a nominee to fill the open seat so close to the election.Senate Republicans have largely rallied around the nomination, however, praising Barrett as exceedingly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Republicans, who have a 53-seat majority, only need 51 votes to confirm a new justice. Senate Democrats, in contrast, have decried the nomination and the confirmation process.Democrats have warned that Barrett’s confirmation will put health care protections and the Affordable Care Act in jeopardy. They have argued that the confirmation process has been rushed and accused Republicans of hypocrisy in moving ahead with the nomination after blocking consideration of former President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in 2016. The Republican Party is willing to ignore the pandemic to rush this Supreme Court nomination forward, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech on Sunday.Democrats, who are in the minority, have been limited in their ability to oppose the nomination, but have protested the process in a variety of ways. When the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the nomination, Democratic senators on the panel boycotted the vote, filling their seats instead with pictures of people who rely upon the Affordable Care Act in an effort to draw attention to an upcoming case on the health care law’s constitutionality and their arguments that Barrett’s confirmation would put the law at risk.During confirmation hearings, Democrats sought to elicit answers from Barrett on a number of controversial topics the Supreme Court could take up. Barrett repeatedly declined, however, to specify how she might rule on a range of topics, from the Affordable Care Act to Roe v. Wade and the high court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Barrett explained during the hearings that she shared a philosophy with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, whom she clerked for, but argued she would not be an identical justice if she is confirmed. If I’m confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia. You would be getting Justice Barrett, she said. And that’s so because originalists don’t always agree. Source: https://edition.cnn.com//senate-confirmation-vo/index.html

#abortion #rights Republicans vote to advance Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate https://abortion-blog.com//republicans-vote-to-ad...vance-am/ KEY POINTS Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously on Thursday to advance the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court over a boycott from the committee’s Democrats. The vote paves the way for the full Senate to confirm Barrett to the high court on Monday, ahead of the Nov. 3 election between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump has repeatedly pressed for Barrett to be placed on the high court in time to resolve any election-related litigation, a request that Democrats see as a plain call for the court’s conservative majority to declare him the winner. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously on Thursday to advance the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court over a boycott from the committee’s Democrats. The vote paves the way for the full Senate to confirm Barrett to the high court on Monday, ahead of the Nov. 3 election between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump has repeatedly pressed for Barrett to be placed on the high court in time to resolve any election-related litigation, a request that Democrats see as a plain call for the court’s conservative majority to declare him the winner if the outcome is contested. The swift action by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R, S-C., to meet Trump’s deadline will make Barrett the first justice in history to be confirmed so close to Election Day. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) arrives next to U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on Capitol Hi Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) arrives next to U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., October 22, 2020.Hannah Mackay | Reuters Barrett, who was a professor at Notre Dame Law School until Trump nominated her to serve on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approximately three years ago, will be the sixth Republican-appointee on the nine-judge Supreme Court, and Trump’s third nominee. Trump nominated her to the high court last month after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon who served on the bench for 27 years. Ginsburg expressed a dying wish not to be replaced until after the election. As Ginsburg’s replacement, Barrett is expected to shift the court’s center of gravity decisively to the right, potentially imperiling the Democratic agenda items on health care, abortion access and the Second Amendment. In focus is a Nov. 10 case the court will hear over the constitutionality of Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act. While the Democrats did not appear at Thursday’s committee hearing, they left supersized posters of individuals who rely on the law in their seats. Republicans denounced the gesture as theatrics. Democratic Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee boycott the committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States during a Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Business meeting in Washington, Democratic Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee boycott the committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States during a Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Business meeting in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 22, 2020.Caroline Brehman | CQ Roll Call | Reuters Barrett declined to provide specifics about her views on Obamacare during two days of questioning before the committee last week, but reaffirmed her originalist method of interpretation and her affinity for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative hero for whom she clerked early in her career. Despite her previous writings that were critical of Obamacare, the conservative said she would approach the Nov. 10 case with an open mind if confirmed. She noted that the upcoming case raises questions about a legal doctrine upon which she had not previously expressed an opinion. Some progressives were outraged by Democrats’ handling of Barrett’s confirmation hearings, arguing they lent legitimacy to a process at odds with McConnell’s 2016 refusal to even hold hearings for President Barack Obama’s nominee Judge Merrick Garland. Organizations with power on the left, including Justice Democrats and Demand Justice, have since called for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the committee’s top Democrat, to step down. Democrats on Wednesday announced that they would boycott Thursday’s hearing. We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that was joined by the committee’s Democrats. At the start of the hearing, Graham addressed Democrats’ boycott, saying we are not going to allow them to take over the committee. They made a choice not to participate, he said. Source: https://www.cnbc.com//gop-senators-vote-to-advance-amy-con

#abortion #rights Biden is a pro-choice catholic. Will he expand reproductive health care? A large challenge for this new presidency will be that of repairing t...he harm of the last 4 years. Let's hold our leaders accountable to providing what should be basic healthcare. https://abortion-blog.com//biden-is-a-pro-choice-catholic/ When Joe Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20, he will become the most prominent pro-choice Catholic in the country. Although the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops opposes abortion and advocates for religous exceptions to birth control coverage, the majority of U.S. Catholics support access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including 56 percent of U.S. Catholics who believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Jamie Manson, president of Catholics for Choice, said she hopes these Catholics will have more of a voice under the incoming Biden-Harris administration. We see giving women access to reproductive health care as being pro-life, Manson said of Catholics for Choice, which was founded in 1973 by Catholics who believe that the faith tradition supports a person’s right to follow their conscience on matters of their own reproductive health. We love our faith but we don’t want to see our faith have disproportionate influence in policy, Manson said. We do not want to see it misused and become an instrument of harm, particularly to the most vulnerable and the poorest. This week, Biden tapped California attorney general Xavier Becerra, a Catholic, as the next secretary of health and human services. His record suggests that he sees the issue of reproductive rights through the lens of social justice, Manson said. Earlier this year, Becerra led a coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief opposing a Mississippi abortion ban that he called unjust, unlawful, and unfair. After four years of Trump administration policies driven by fierce opposition to abortion rights, especially from Christian conservatives, Manson and other faith-based reproductive rights advocates are hoping that the incoming Biden-Harris administration will turn the tide. Advocates are looking to the president-elect to end policies that have curtailed access to reproductive health care, particularly for low-income Americans. Reproductive health care as a human right Since taking office, Donald Trump has taken many steps to rollback access to reproductive health care, often through agency rulemaking and executive orders. One of his first actions as president was to reinstate a policy that prohibits any nonprofit receiving U.S. global health funds from performing or mentioning abortion as a method of family planning. In 2019, the Trump administration applied that rule domestically, rewriting the Title X low-income family planning program to prohibit fund recipients from providing abortion referrals, even when patients request it. The new rule caused approximately one-quarter of all U.S. clinics that received Title X funding to leave the program, according to the pro-choice research institution the Guttmacher Institute. Guttmacher estimates that the changes reduced the Title X network’s capacity to provide women with contraceptive services by at least 46 percent. Reproductive rights advocates hope that Biden will reverse these policies and instead funnel more federal money into comprehensive reproductive health care services. Cherisse Scott, a former nondenominational minister and founder of SisterReach, a reproductive rights nonprofit based in Tennessee, hopes that Biden will replenish and invest federal dollars into making sure that young people have access to comprehensive sex education for K-12 and college students. One of the biblical scriptures we use to guide our commitment to comprehensive reproductive and sexual health education, is Hosea 4:6: ‘My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge,’ said Scott. Access to education and being empowered to inform if, when, and how you will engage in sex, parenting, or even celibacy is only achieved by an informed and unhindered understanding of our bodies. Advocates also hope that Biden will block a budget provision known as the Hyde Amendment. First approved by Congress in the 1970s, the amendment blocks the use of federal funds for abortion care, meaning individuals who get their coverage through Medicare, Medicaid, or the U.S. military aren’t able to access that health care. We don’t want to see that in the president’s budget, said Rev. Sung Yeon Choimorrow, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum and an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). What we really want is for every person to make the decision for themselves as to if, when, and how they want to parent, Choimorrow said. The Trump administration has also offered faith-based exemptions to religious employers who don’t want to offer contraception in their employee insurance plans, as is mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Rabbi Hara Person, chief executive of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the leadership organization of Reform Judaism in the United States, said these carveouts were part of a broader trend of the Trump administration favoring certain religious viewpoints over others. The idea that religious liberty is about restricting people’s rights and allowing one religious perspective to control other people’s opinions is a complete misuse of what religious liberty is supposed to be about, Person said. When religious liberty is being used as a way to control other people, that’s religious liberty being used as a hammer. Reform Judaism considers abortion to be part of health care and health care to be a human right, she said. We’re all created equal, and we’re all created in the image of God, Person said. So nobody should have the right to say to another person, ‘You can’t make decisions for yourself.’ While there is much that the new administration can change in the way of health policy, rollbacks in the federal court system and state legislatures won’t be easily undone. Biden will be far from a cure-all, advocates say. Even if the Biden-Harris administration champions the most expansive view of reproductive rights and justice, so much, in terms of abortion, sex ed, and Medicaid expansion, happens on the state level, said Rev. Katey Zeh, CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The RCRC is an interfaith organization of religious leaders for whom access to comprehensive reproductive health services, including abortion, is an expression of religious freedom, according to Zeh. The organization has its roots in a pre-Roe v. Wade clergy consultation service where Christian, Jewish, and Unitarian clergy helped people access safe and affordable abortion care. Even going back to pre-Trump, the state of reproductive health rights and justice wasn’t great, said Zeh. It’s certainly gotten worse, but it’s not like our aim is to return to where we were four years ago. Source: https://sojo.net//biden-pro-choice-catholic-will-he-expand

#abortion #rights Poland abortion: Top court backs almost all terminations https://abortion-blog.com//poland-abortion-top-court-back/ Poland’s top court has r...uled that abortions in cases of foetal defects are unconstitutional. Poland’s abortion laws were already among the strictest in Europe but the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling will mean an almost total ban. Once the decision comes into effect, terminations will only be allowed in cases of rape or incest, or if the mother’s health is at risk. Rights groups had urged the government not to increase restrictions. The Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights said the day marked a sad day for women’s rights. Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in Poland amounts to a ban and violates human rights, Dunja Mijatovic wrote on Twitter. A legal challenge against the 1993 law permitting abortion in cases of severe foetal disabilities which accounts for 98% of terminations carried out in Poland was launched by MPs from the ruling nationalist Law and Justice party last year. A majority of the court’s judges were nominated by the same party. Presentational grey line What court’s decision means for Poland Analysis box by Adam Easton, Warsaw correspondent Almost all legal abortions in Poland are performed on the grounds of foetal defects, so this ruling, which is final and binding, effectively bans pregnancy terminations. Poland is one of Europe’s most strongly Catholic countries, but there was no public clamour for this. For years opinion polls said a clear majority of Poles opposed a more restrictive law. Bishops and lay Catholic groups pressured the governing Law and Justice party to impose a stricter law. The party supports traditional Catholic values but changing it was problematic. There was opposition both in parliament and on the streets. In 2016 an estimated 100,000 people, mostly women, protested to block an attempt to tighten the law. A pro-abortion activist takes part in a demonstration in Krakow in April 2020 image captionActivists held socially distanced protests against the proposals earlier this year Late last year a group of governing party and far-right MPs decided to ask the court to decide the issue. This was convenient because a majority of the court’s judges were nominated by Law and Justice. It would also avoid a stormy and emotional parliamentary debate and accompanying anger on the streets in those pre-Covid days. Now, with public gatherings limited to a maximum of 10 people in most major cities, opponents of this change will have to find other ways to show their anger. There were just over 1,000 legal pregnancy terminations in Poland last year. Compare that with this statistic: women’s rights groups estimate between 80,000 and 120,000 Polish women a year seek an abortion abroad. Even women who qualify for a legal procedure often face challenges to having one: such is the stigma surrounding the issue. Presentational grey line Malgorzata Szulecka, a lawyer for the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, told the BBC: This is a totally unjustified decision that will lead to inhuman treatment of women. Ahead of the ruling, Polish sexual and reproductive health and rights activist Antonina Lewandowska told the BBC that the defence of the 1993 law was based on UN rules outlawing torture. It’s inhuman, it’s despicable honestly to make anyone carry a pregnancy to term, especially if the foetus is malformed, and 98% of legal abortions carried out in Poland are due to foetal malformations, she said. International human rights groups opposed the government’s stance, with Amnesty International, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Human Rights Watch saying they would send independent monitors to the court. The Constitutional Tribunal’s upcoming proceedings take place in the context of repeated government attacks on women’s rights and efforts to roll back reproductive rights, as well as legal and policy changes that have undermined the independence of the judiciary and rule of law in Poland, they said in a joint statement. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54642108

#abortion #rights Roe v. Wade Might Be Overturned Soon This Is Worse Than You Think https://abortion-blog.com//roe-v-wade-might-be-overturned/ Angel Kai’s* ...heart sank when she found out she was pregnant again. The 20-year-old had delivered her second child only three months prior. She was on unpaid maternity leave from her job in Amarillo, TX, and she’d just received a $130 electricity bill in the mail that she didn’t know if she’d be able to pay. Everything that was happening financially was just bad, she remembers. I couldn’t have another kid. I knew getting an abortion would be the best thing, because I couldn’t walk up the street to get a soda if I wanted one at the time. We were that tight on money. It turned out, though, that Angel couldn’t even afford the abortion she knew she wanted. Her health plan was offered under state-funded Medicaid, which, in Texas, only covers abortion in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. So, Angel Googled abortion financial help. She came across a few different nonprofits called abortion funds, which provide financial assistance to people who can’t afford to go through the process themselves. One, Fund Texas Choice, said they would help Angel. They ended up footing the bill for the gas it would take to drive to the clinic, an overnight hotel stay, and her food for the trip. They also connected her with another fund that helped pay for the pill she was prescribed.The morning of her abortion, Angel dropped her baby off with a relative at 6 a.m. Then she put in a shift at the lawn company where she worked, her first since going on maternity leave. After clocking out, she started the four-and-a-half-hour drive to Albuquerque, NM. (The closest in-state clinic to her was in Dallas, an additional hour away.) Her then-partner was supposed to join her, but they got in a fight on the way, and she had to turn around and drop him off. She barely made it to the clinic on time, but she got there. And it changed her life for the better, she says. Before finding Fund Texas Choice, Angel had tried to get an ultrasound at a crisis pregnancy center, which is actually a coded name for an anti-abortion clinic. They told me abortion is murder, and that I would go to hell if I had one, Angel remembers now, a year later. But I knew the abortion was the best thing for me to do. Angel’s story could have looked very different. If she hadn’t learned about the fund, she may have not been able to get the abortion pill. Alternatively, if she lived in a different state, she may have been able to use her health insurance to pay for the abortion, at a clinic much closer to her house. In reality, the state of abortion access in America is woefully unequal. And soon, considering the tenuous status of Roe v. Wade, abortions may become even less attainable. If Abortion Is Legal, Why Is It So Hard To Access? In September 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died at age 87. This opened up a spot on the Supreme Court, and President Donald Trump quickly nominated conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ginsberg’s seat. Many fear that Barrett’s appointment could lead to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S., being overturned. While this possibility has led some to envision a future reminiscent of an episode of The Handmaid’s Tale, the reality is that some people who already find it easy to get an abortion those with wealth, power, and connections may not notice such a big change in a post-Roe world. The ones who will be hit the hardest are those who already struggle to get abortion care. Namely, low-income people in states with already-restrictive abortion legislation. Over the last few decades, Roe has been an unfulfilled promise for many, says Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the American Civil Liberties Union. States in the South and the Midwest tend to have the most restrictions around reproductive rights. The Bible Belt is known for legislation that typically makes abortions more expensive and time-consuming, and therefore less accessible. For instance, 34 states and Washington, D.C. only provide healthcare funding for abortions in the most extreme circumstances, such as rape or life endangerment. This is in accordance with the Hyde Amendment, which was passed just three years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. This is, in part, why Angel couldn’t use her Medicaid insurance to pay for her abortion.Nearly half of abortion recipients live below the federal poverty line, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s 2014 Abortion Patient Survey, so the Hyde Amendment is particularly damaging. Those who are denied abortions are more likely to experience years-long economic hardship, according to a 2017 analysis from The American Journal of Public Health. The 16 states that let Medicaid be used for most medically necessary abortions, (a broad definition that includes physical, emotional, familial, and psychological factors) are largely liberal states. Another way state governments restrict access is through overly punitive regulations that are often called TRAP laws, short for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. They’re medically unnecessary, and make it harder and sometimes impossible for clinicians to offer abortion care, according to The Planned Parenthood Action Fund. That can limit the number of clinics in some areas. Five states have only one remaining abortion clinic: North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia. People living in these states might have to travel up to 200 miles to reach a clinic, and could have to wait a few weeks for an available appointment. In 2019, the average woman of childbearing age lived 25 miles away from the nearest abortion clinic, according to data from the journal Contraception. But that number doesn’t tell the whole story. Large cities with clinics have high populations concentrated in one area. Although the mean travel distance for a person in New York was five miles, it was 136 for a woman in South Dakota.What’s more, some states have mandatory 24-hour waiting periods or require counseling before going through the process. That means patients may have to make two individual trips to the clinic, or get a hotel and stay overnight. The trips, plus the cost of the medical regimen or procedure which can be $1,000 or more can be untenable without financial aid. Across the country, we’ve already seen a systematic chipping away at the right to access abortion, even without overturning Roe, explains Rachel Sussman, The Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s vice president of state policy and advocacy. Since the 2010 elections, we’ve seen 480 state-level abortion restrictions passed. The legislation disproportionately affects Black women and people of color, says Marcela Howell, president and CEO of In Our Own Voice, the National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda. Some of the states with the most restrictions have higher POC populations. In Mississippi, for instance, which upholds the Hyde Amendment and requires patients to undergo counseling before having an abortion, 38% of the population is Black, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Roe is the floor, not the ceiling, Howell says. What we’re concerned about is: How do we grant access to that right for everyone? And the future of abortion rights is looking bleaker and bleaker by the year, many abortion rights advocates say. In 2019, 58 new restrictions were enacted, including 25 abortion bans in 12 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute. They seek to place limitations on how, when, or why an abortion is performed. Some of the bans offer exceptions for pregnancies that occur due to rape or incest, but only if the patient has filed an official police report. Alabama has proposed a ban that would prohibit all abortions period. All this is to say, access to abortion is already compromised, and that’s with the Roe v. Wade decision intact. Yes, we all have a constitutional right to abortion, but the access has never been equally shared, Howell says. Women who are poor, those who have the kind of jobs that don’t have flexible hours to go to a clinic in states where they need to wait 24 to 48 hours between the initial appointment and procedure they don’t have access. What Will Happen If Roe v. Wade Is Overturned? At the first presidential debate in September Trump said, there is nothing happening with Roe v. Wade, and that he didn’t know [Barrett’s] view on the landmark ruling. But, during her confirmation hearings last week, Barrett noted Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. The prevailing belief is that the ruling is in grave danger of being overturned, Arons says. Perhaps unsurprisingly, at least some anti-abortion advocates are happy with Barrett’s appointment. Americans United for Life was the first pro-life group to urge the president to select Judge Barrett, Catherine Glenn Foster, president & CEO of the anti-abortion organization, told Refinery29 in a statement. She noted it’s likely the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to rule on questions of abortion rights. We are confident that if confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Barrett would prove herself a trusted caretaker of the constitutional protections extended to every human person in America, Glenn Foster said. The Supreme Court may get its chance to reconsider Roe v. Wade within the next year, according to multiple experts Refinery29 spoke to. Right now, there are 17 abortion-related cases that are one step away from the Supreme Court, Sussman says. There are several cases that could give the court the opportunity to completely gut Roe or perhaps overturn it. That’s more likely to happen if Barrett is confirmed. Barrett has not returned a message Refinery29 left with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit requesting comment.If Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion wouldn’t become illegal across the nation overnight. However, trigger laws that are on the books now would go into effect and ban the procedure almost immediately. And, more broadly, access would be even more dependent on state legislation than it is now, says Noel León, interim director of state abortion access at the National Women’s Law Center. Some states may pass bills or change their constitutions to protect access. Others, such as New York (where abortion was legal even before Roe was decided), have already passed laws to protect access in the event the landmark case is overturned. Meanwhile, other states could further curtail access or ban abortions completely. Without Roe, abortion would likely become illegal in 22 states, according to a recent analysis from Middlebury College. In that case, for 41% of women of childbearing age, the nearest abortion clinic would close. They’d then have to travel and average distance of 280 miles to the nearest one compared to 36 miles, the current average for counties where a Roe reversal is likely to occur, explains Caitlin Knowles Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury College. And even if Roe is not overturned in one fell swoop, states could continue passing legislation that chips away at access bit by bit, and the Supreme Court could uphold those state laws, explains Laurence H. Tribe, university professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard. If Roe is dismantled, Sussman says that 25 million women of reproductive age live in a state where abortion would be banned. This is perhaps the most likely scenario: That a more conservative Supreme Court will first hollow out Roe until there’s almost nothing left. That could look like banning common procedures for abortion, such as Dilation and Evacuation, or even forbidding abortions after brain waves are detected, Tribe says. Right now, with the 17 abortion-related cases held up in federal appeals courts, the Supreme Court has what Tribe describes as a menu of cases, and they’ll get to pick and choose which to take. They’re going to be looking for cases that will give them the maximum opportunity to do the most damage to Roe v. Wade, Tribe says. You’ve heard of death by a thousand cuts? That’s what may happen to Roe, after about a dozen decisions over the next three to four years. If that occurs, or in the case of overturning Roe entirely, Congress could try to enact a national law protecting the right to abortion. But the Supreme Court with three Trump-appointed Justices, plus Justices [Samuel] Alito and [Clarence] Thomas might hold that it’s beyond Congress’s power under the interstate commerce clause to pass such a law, Tribe adds. Then, determining access would be in the hands of the states. But it won’t necessarily stay with them. If Roe is eventually overturned, a more liberal state, say California, could write in their constitution that it’s still legal to have an abortion in the first two trimesters. But eventually, anti-abortion advocates could take a case to the Supreme Court saying that’s depriving the fetus of its right to life. That kind of argument, which would have gone nowhere five or 10 years ago, might well have five justices behind it if Barrett is confirmed, Tribe says. Congress could also pass a federal abortion ban that the president signs. The worst possible outcome is a sweeping constitutional amendment banning abortion federally, according to Talcott Camp, the chief legal and strategy officer at the National Abortion Federation though she doesn’t see it happening in the near future. However, it’s been part of the Republican platform for years. We are confronting a world in which women can be controlled by people in power, Tribe says. But no matter which scenario actually becomes reality, abortion access will continue to affect people unequally. You’ve got to hold two things at once, Camp says. It would be a terrible, tragic loss if Roe was overturned, and that would have a huge impact on low-income, Black, brown, and rural women. But it is also true that those folks are already suffering from lack of abortion access today. And that they would suffer disproportionately were the courts to hollow out Roe so much that states could effectively ban abortion. Organizations that help fund abortions, like the one Angel used, are already struggling to meet the needs of their communities. Here’s the reality a lot of people aren’t talking about, says Laurie Bertram Roberts, executive director of both the Mississippi Freedom Fund and the Yellowhammer Fund in Alabama. Roberts, who uses she/her and they/them pronouns, has been helping low income folks pay for abortions in the South since 2013. People are saying, ‘Well, we’ll just get money together and drive all these people to states where abortion is legal like we did before Roe,' Roberts says. As I always say when something is ridiculous, ‘That’s cute.’ Capacity-wise, clinics could not afford to take all of those patients. Even if we all had private jets to fly people out of state, it still would not solve the problem. As Roberts says, You’re gonna see folks who, with Roe, could swing it not be able to swing it any more. The same person who could drive from Texas to New Mexico for an abortion may not be able to make it all the way to Chicago. And definitely not to Europe.This may prompt more women to try terminating their pregnancies at home, says Jen Villavicencio, MD, MPP, a physician providing abortions in Michigan and a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. There’s evidence to suggest that self-managed abortion whether done with guidance from others, or done by a woman herself can be done safely, Dr. Villavicencio says. I worry about the stigma associated with this We’re in a scary place where people will potentially not be willing to seek care if they have one of the few rare complications because they’re afraid of the consequences. There are laws that exist right now that criminalize this, and people have been put in jail for it, taken away from their families. Even though abortion is legal, there have been numerous attempts to charge and convict women for self-inducing abortion. Arons says that Black and brown women are at heightened risk for being targeted by overzealous prosecutors misusing statutes to criminalize behavior during pregnancy. States with abortion bans held up in courts right now, such as Alabama, claim they’d only prosecute doctors, not pregnant people seeking abortions. But how would you enforce that? asks Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and author of Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History of the Abortion Debate. People are going to fly out of state or order abortion pills online. If you’re Alabama, you’re faced with this choice: Do you not enforce your law, or do you punish your patients? That’s going to be a zero-sum decision. All this may seem dismal, but not all is lost, advocates say. There are certainly states looking to protect abortion rights right now, says Elizabeth Nash, the interim associate director of states issues at The Guttmacher Institute. Virginia just rolled back restrictions such as counseling and waiting period requirements this year, and expanded access to abortion. In that state, 10 years ago you wouldn’t have thought that was possible, but it shows that progress can be made. But those advancements won’t happen if people don’t make their voices heard and vote, says Rachel Fey, the senior director of public policy at Power to Decide. She urges people to learn where their national and local candidates stand on the right to choose before casting a ballot. She notes that folks can call their Congresspeople to voice support for bills that aim to protect reproductive rights. Two are currently in the House of Representatives: the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would stop restrictions that block access to abortion care; and The EACH Woman Act, which would eliminate restrictions on abortion coverage in public and private insurance plans. Tribe adds that it’s not too late to continue to push your senators to hold off on the confirmation of Barrett before the vote on Oct. 22. If there was a massive uprising and people realized what was at stake for them, and marched on Washington on reproductive rights, who knows? Tribe says. She will likely be confirmed very narrowly, and, at this point, only political pressure will matter. There’s no procedure or silver bullet available to stop this nomination. Rising up is the only way. What To Do If You Need An Abortion (Or Know Someone Who Does) These days, most people who need an abortion start in the same place as Angel: Google. But it can be hard to decipher your state’s laws, and sometimes doing so takes time that you may not have. Luckily, there are organizations that make it easier. To find the abortion clinic nearest to you, visit the National Abortion Federation’s website or call them at 1-877-257-0012, Roberts suggests. They have a list of certified clinics on their website, which demonstrate that they comply with NAF’s high standards for safety and patient-centered care. Additionally, the nonprofit Power To Decide launched a digital abortion finder tool just last month that can help you safely find a verified physician or nurse practitioner in your area. This can be accessed at abortionfinder.org. If you know you won’t be able to pay for your abortion, NAF has a confidential hotline you can call to request help with funding: 1-800-772-9100. If they can’t cover you, try the National Network of Abortion Funds website, which lists organizations that help folks pay for their abortions, broken down by state. If your state doesn’t have a fund, call the one in the neighboring state, and they’ll likely know what to do. If someone goes through the trouble to find us, we’ll rarely turn them away, Roberts adds. Besides money for abortions, these funds may offer assistance with travel, hotels, and emotional support, too.Worth noting: Many abortion funds need financial support. If you’re able, consider donating to a fund using the resources above. Any way people want to give money or resources, we’ll make it happen and find a way to take the donation, just reach out, Roberts says. Even if that means giving us a gift card you got for your birthday that you know you won’t use, everything helps. Angel, now 21, is pregnant again and this time, she’s thrilled. Her abortion allowed her to get back on her feet financially, and she says she has no regrets. She’ll forever be grateful for the emotional and physical support that Fund Texas Choice gave her as she traveled across state lines to take the abortion pill at five weeks. She remembers sipping a Sprite on her long drive home a soda the fund’s program coordinator had bought her knowing she’d made the right decision. And she feels even more confident in her choice today. I’m much happier now, she says. Right now, if I wanted to have an abortion, I could actually afford to make that choice. My abortion helped open up doors to get me where I’m at now. It was something that needed to happen. *Angel’s name has been changed to protect her identity. Source: https://www.refinery29.com//what-happens-if-roe-v-wade-ove

#abortion #rights Chief Justice John Roberts’ Abortion Time Bomb Goes Off in Kentucky Less than four months after helping keep Louisiana abortion clinics open, ...John Roberts could be the reason clinics in Kentucky are forced to close. https://abortion-blog.com//chief-justice-john-roberts-abo/ The time for celebrating the Supreme Court’s ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo is over, and you have embattled Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron to thank for it. In late June, when the Supreme Court struck down Act 620, Louisiana’s law forcing abortion providers to get admitting privileges at a local hospital, abortion rights advocates celebrated the win. It was a victory for abortion rights in Louisiana, since access wouldn’t be further decimated. And it was a victory for the providers who had triedand failedto get admitting privileges at hospitals that were either outright hostile to abortion or saw no point in granting privileges to doctors who rarely admit patients with complications. (That’s because abortion is wildly safe!) But advocates knew that the celebration would be short-lived. Yes, John Roberts had voted with the liberals on the Court and, in doing so, had saved Louisiana’s remaining abortion clinics. But he did so with a wink and a nod to anti-choice advocates. Well, the other shoe has dropped. It’s barely four months later and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, along with a couple of Trump judges from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, wants you to know that laws almost identical to the ones the Supreme Court just struck down in Louisiana are still on the table. Let me explain how. June Medical Services was a case about a Louisiana TRAP law. Generally, TRAP lawsthat stands for targeted regulation of abortion providersare designed to shut down clinics. In June Medical Services, the TRAP law required abortion providers in Louisiana to maintain admitting privileges at a local hospital. That TRAP law was modeled on an identical law in Texas, and lawmakers in both states gleefullyand publiclyadmitted that their clinic shutdown laws were meant to do just thatshut down clinics. But what if there was a TRAP law that wasn’t a clinic shutdown law? What if instead of shutting down clinics, the law kept them in a perpetual state of licensing limbo? Enter Kentucky, which was able to sneak its clinic shutdown law past a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, thanks to an argument that Cameron crafted after he intervened (legalese for pushed his way into) the case. The two judges who sided with Cameron are, unsurprisingly, Trump judges. Cameronwho has somehow managed to avoid a national scandal after reportedly lying about the investigation into Breonna Taylor’s murderasked the court if he could intervene because, although the state legislature is controlled by Republicans, Kentucky’s governor, Andy Beshear, is a Democrat and has demonstrated he’s not going to waste Kentucky taxpayer money defending bullshit abortion restrictions. Cameron has no such reservations.Kentucky’s law requiring abortion clinics to have a transfer agreement in order to maintain their license has a loophole that allows officials in the state to slowly lower the sword of Damocles over clinics’ heads without ever truly dropping it. In documents filed with the Sixth Circuit, Cameron argued that Kentucky’s transfer agreement law was different than the laws in Louisiana and Texas. It’s a cynical, and quite frankly, ridiculous, interpretation of a law that amounts to little more than harassment of Kentucky abortion providers. Under Kentucky law, abortion providers must have a transfer agreement with a local hospital in the same county or within a 20-minute drive of the clinic. (A transfer agreement is for all intents and purposes the same as an admitting privileges agreement. It means a clinic has an arrangement with a hospital to transfer patients suffering complications from abortion to a specific hospitaleven though very few patients suffer abortion complications, and paramedics will take the ones who do to whatever hospital is closest.) But wait! I thought the Supreme Court has already decided that admitting privileges laws serve no medical benefit? you may be asking. You’re right. In 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority of the Court, said that admitting privileges laws are nonsense. (The technical term for nonsense in this context is an undue burden on the right to an abortion under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but nonsense is what it is.) Breyer took a look at the benefits that Texas claimed the law would have for pregnant people and weighted them against the burdens the law would impose. (That’s what the undue burden test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey requires.) After that calculus, Breyer determined that the law was an undue burden. After all, it would have closed most clinics in the state. In June Medical Services, Breyer deployed that same logic. The law in Louisiana, like in Texas, would have shut down nearly every clinic in Louisiana. But in his concurring opinion in June Medical Services, Roberts donned his monocle and top hat and huffed But what did the Casey Court really say? before explaining that the undue burden analysis in Casey doesn’t require the weighing of benefits and burdens that the majority in Whole Woman’s Health said was necessary. In Roberts’ view, Casey asks one question: Is this law a substantial obstacle? He was content to answer in the affirmative when it came to Louisiana’s law because it was a clinic shutdown law. But what if a state passed an admitting privileges law that didn’t shut down clinics? That just made it an absurd pain in the ass for abortion clinics to stay in business? That is what’s happening in Kentucky. Kentucky’s law requiring abortion clinics to have a transfer agreement in order to maintain their license has a loophole that allows officials in the state to slowly lower the sword of Damocles over clinics’ heads without ever truly dropping it; officials can extend a waiver to a clinic having difficulty securing a transfer agreement if the officials feel like it. It’s at their discretion. The waiver permits the clinic to continue operating for 90 days. And considering that the clinics in Kentucky haven’t had much success in obtaining these agreements, the law essentially forces these clinics to apply for a waiver of the transfer agreement requirement every 90 days while unceasingly trying to convince a hospital to enter into a transfer agreement. Because if officials in Kentucky get the sense that clinics just aren’t trying hard enough, then they can refuse to extend the waiver. It’s a bonkers system. But that’s the abortion landscape for the foreseeable future, thanks to the giant Casey time bomb John Roberts left ticking in June Medical Services v. Russo. If, as Roberts believes, the only relevant question is whether a law is a substantial obstacle to abortion, then as long as a law leaves the possibility of a clinic remaining openby offering discretionary waivers from it’s requirementthen it may not be an undue burden. It doesn’t matter if that clinic has the Sisyphean task of spending countless hours trying to comply with laws that it will likely never be able to comply with. Roberts has signaled loud and clear that he is OK with this system. He has also signaled that he is eager to take another long hard look at Planned Parenthood v. Casey, if only someoneanyonewould tee up the right case. Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com//chief-justice-john-roberts-/

#abortion #rights Whose Story Gets Told In The Abortion Debates? https://abortion-blog.com//whose-story-gets-told-in-the-a/ As the Supreme Court confirmation ...hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett approach, abortion issues have been thrown into the spotlight once again. President Donald Trump nominated Judge Barrett after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month. Justice Ginsburg was a vocal advocate for women’s rights and endorsed abortion rights when questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee at her confirmation hearing in 1993. While Judge Barrett has not signed onto an official opinion cutting back on the rights guaranteed in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, she has disagreed with appeals courts who struck down laws that restrict abortion in her home state of Indiana.ListenListening45:22Host Anita Rao talks with four guests about misconceptions and under-represented narratives in the abortion debate and in popular culture. But while advocates on both sides contemplate the future of abortion laws, misconceptions and stigma around who gets abortions and why make it difficult to understand who might be affected by changes in legislation. Individual stories of patients and providers get lost in the broad-sweeping debates and laws, such as stories of those who seek abortions in the second trimester or those who terminate wanted pregnancies. Host Anita Rao talks with Gretchen Sisson, a research sociologist at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, about how television and real life diverge when it comes to abortion and how that may influence our understanding of the issue. Dr. Rathika Nimalendran also joins the conversation to break down North Carolina’s abortion laws and misconceptions. And Rao talks with Margaret and Ruth, two women who terminated wanted pregnancies in their second trimesters for medical reasons. Interview Highlights Rathika Nimalendran on a common barrier many patients face in getting information about abortion: I provide primary care to patients in a rural community health center that receives federal funding. And because of federal laws, I’m actually one, not able to provide abortions to my patients, to the patients that I see who come to me. And additionally, I’m also not even allowed to tell them where they can access an abortion or even access information about what clinics provide abortions. Gretchen Sisson on how popular media may shape audience understanding of abortion: Because abortion is so stigmatized in real life, there’s a deficit of real abortion stories to contextualize what we think we know about abortion. So everybody knows someone who’s had an abortion, they just don’t necessarily know that they know someone who’s had an abortion because it’s so secretive. And in that way, fictional stories can be really powerful examples. Margaret on having the right to make her own decision about her termination: If someone else in my shoes were to make a different decision, then I’m great with that. I’m fine with that. I support them. But I don’t think that these other people should get to choose for me. I don’t think that they should get to make this decision for me and my family. Ruth on her termination being deemed elective by her insurance: We were told that our child was incompatible with life. That’s a diagnosis that no parent or soon-to-be parent ever wants to hear. But to complicate things further, to then go through a termination and receive a bill from your insurer for what I received was a $42,000 bill for a procedure that they deemed quote unquote, elective. After a doctor told me that this was a baby that was incompatible with life. How can I be billed for this as though I were having plastic surgery? As if it were something that I walked in and planned and wanted? Source: https://www.wunc.org//whose-story-gets-told-abortion-debat

#abortion #rights Notre Dame calendars show more events not listed on Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate paperwork https://abortion-blog.com//notre-dame-calendars-show...-more/ Public calendars from the University of Notre Dame’s law school show at least seven additional talks not listed on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate paperwork, including one with the law school’s anti-abortion group, according to a CNN KFile review. Barrett, whose Supreme Court confirmation hearing to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is underway, is listed as participating in the newly discovered talks from 2004 to 2013. The calendars list her as participating in a panel on religion in the public square, a speech to a student religious society, a talk with the law school’s anti-abortion group, a roundtable on the Constitution, a faculty colloquium, a student scholarship symposium and an event sponsored by Notre Dame’s Women’s Legal Forum. All of Barrett’s events were listed on public calendars from Notre Dame, which CNN’s KFile accessed on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and on Notre Dame’s website. Barrett is required to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee all public talks she has given in her professional career, according to a committee staffer. Similar types of events were disclosed on the paperwork she submitted. Barrett has already faced questions over initially failing to disclose some talks she gave while a law professor at Notre Dame. CNN’s KFile reported last week that Barrett initially did not disclose two talks she gave in 2013 hosted by two anti-abortion student groups on paperwork provided to the Senate. Barrett’s initial failure to disclose those two events, and subsequent talks found by CNN’s KFile, raise questions about whether the questionnaire is a complete overview of her talks as a law professor and whether she could face any consequences from the committee. CNN’s KFile could not independently confirm Barrett’s participation in the events, only that they were listed on Notre Dame’s public calendars. In several of the instances, only listings for the events, but not descriptions of them, were archived.Following CNN’s reporting last week, and an inquiry to the White House on a 2013 right to life ad she signed in a Notre Dame newspaper, Barrett sent a letter detailing the talks and the ad to the Senate Judiciary Committee. At her hearing on Tuesday, Barrett said those initial omissions had been an oversight due to the large volume of material she had to find and remember over 30 years.White House spokesperson Judd Deere told CNN in an email on Wednesday that Barrett had been nothing but transparent with the committee, noting that she had provided 1,800 pages of materials, met with the vast majority of senators on the committee and after today will have gone through nearly 20 hours of questioning by members with zero notes in front of her. A spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee referred CNN to a press release from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office that noted that Supreme Court nominees have routinely supplemented their questionnaires. CNN reached out to Barrett’s chambers for comment, but they did not respond.Of the newly discovered undisclosed talks from Barrett, several of them focused on the intersection between religion and the law, a not uncommon subject for a Catholic university. In April 2004, Barrett was scheduled to give a two-hour talk called Law and The description, according to the calendar, was Liberally Clothing the Naked Public Square, a reference to religion in the public square.In February 2005, Barrett was scheduled to speak to the religious student organization the St. Thomas More Society on her experience as a Catholic mother in the legal profession.In March 2013, the calendar shows she was going to participate in a roundtable with the Notre Dame Program on Constitutional Structure to discuss the year’s theme, The Constitution and Unwritten Law, which was to focus on ways in which the law is shaped by forces outside the Constitution’s text.In four instances, it is not clear what Barrett may have said at the talks nor what the talks were about. According to a 2005 calendar, she was scheduled to speak to the Women’s Legal Forum on April 5, 2005. Likewise, she was scheduled to give a presentation in February 2013 to faculty based on a paper. In January 2007, according to a calendar, she was to speak to the law school’s anti-abortion club, Jus Vitae, but it is unclear what the topic of discussion was. And in April 2007, she was set to participate in a student scholarship symposium where she responded to a presentation on an unknown topic from a student from the school’s law review. Source: https://edition.cnn.com//kfile-amy-coney-barre/index.html