Wednesday, February 14, 2018

ProMedica Toledo Hospital authorizes patient-transfer agreement with Toledo, Ohio's last abortion clinic

Toledo Blade (Feb. 12, 2018): ProMedica authorizes patient-transfer agreement with Toledo's last abortion clinic, by Mark Reiter and David Patch:

Following a 5-2 Ohio Supreme Court ruling issued on February 6th ordering the closure of Toledo, Ohio's last abortion clinic for violating state law, the future of the clinic and of abortion access in northwest Ohio looked all too grim...until this past Monday the 12th.

After hours of protesting near ProMedica Toledo Hospital on Monday to call on ProMedica to enter into a patient-transfer agreement that would keep Capital Care Network, Toledo’s last abortion clinic, open, the hospital system’s board of trustees authorized the agreement.

In its decision ordering Capital Care Network to close, the Ohio Supreme Court cited that the clinic's hospital transfer agreement with the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor did not comply with the Ohio Department of Health's 30-minute transport time standard. The department had revoked Capital Care Network's license in 2014.

Following the enactment of a 2013 law requiring all abortion clinics in Ohio to maintain emergency patient-transfer agreements with local hospitals, Capital Care Network sued the state, arguing that the law presented an undue burden on abortion access in Ohio. While the lower courts sided with the clinic, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to tackle the state law's constitutional issues, instead finding that the state "had authority to revoke Capital Care's license based on the failure to comply with the administrative rule" promulgated by the Ohio Department of Health. Unless Capital Care Network could sign an agreement with a hospital within the 30-minute travel requirement, it would be forced to close.

Capital Care previously maintained an agreement with the University of Toledo Medical Center until 2013, when the hospital opted not to renew it. The Ohio legislature then prohibited publicly funded universities from providing transfer agreements to abortion clinics.

In its statement announcing the new agreement with Capital Care, ProMedica spokesperson Tedra White wrote, “entering into this agreement aligns with ProMedica’s mission and values, including our focus on being a health system dedicated to the well-being of northwest Ohio and our belief that no one is beyond the reach of life-saving health care.” “Furthermore," she wrote, "we believe that all individuals should have access to the best care in their neighborhoods.”

Jennifer Branch, an attorney representing Capital Care, said that once she obtains a copy of the transfer agreement, she will file documents with the Ohio Department of Health to halt license-revocation proceedings against the clinic.

Ohio has endured a wave of new laws restricting access to abortion care across the state over the past few years. Under Governor John Kasich, the number of abortion clinics in Ohio has dropped from sixteen to eight. Three are in the Cleveland-Akron area, two in Columbus, and one each in Toledo, Dayton, and Cincinnati. For now, thanks to ProMedica, the number will stand at eight.

February 14, 2018 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, In the Courts, State Legislatures, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Planned Parenthood Will Launch 10 New Video Chat Abortion Locations in 2018

Cosmopolitan (Feb. 6, 2018): Planned Parenthood Will Launch 10 New Video Chat Abortion Locations in 2018, by Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy: 

A safe, early-pregnancy abortion option has been making waves across the United States since Planned Parenthood began its telemedicine abortion pilot program in Iowa in 2008. 

Telemedicine abortions enable those seeking a pregnancy termination to meet with a nurse in a local clinic where both patient and nurse loop in an abortion-providing doctor via video chat. The doctor consults with the patient to determine that they are a good candidate for early pregnancy termination and then authorizes the nurse to dispense two small pills to the patient. The patient takes the first pill in the office in the presence of the nurse and doctor and then later takes the second pill at home. The pregnancy is terminated within a day or two. 

These medications have become known at "the abortion pill" and include both mifepristone and misoprostol, which work together first to block the hormones a woman's body needs to sustain a pregnancy and then to empty her uterus. The FDA-approved abortion pills are for ending pregnancies less than 10 weeks along. A study of Planned Parenthood's telemedicine pilot program found that access to telemedicine abortions decreased second-trimester abortions throughout the state. Second-term abortions require surgical procedures and can carry increased risks.

Although abortion is legal in all 50 states, many states have tightened their restrictions on abortion access, making it very difficult for a person facing an unwanted pregnancy to safely terminate it. Restrictions such as mandatory waiting periods and insurance limitations are compounded in states with very few clinics that can perform abortions. In fact, about 90% of counties in the U.S. do not have an abortion provider. 

Telemedicine allows a patient to meet with an abortion provider even if she doesn’t live near one. Instead of driving long distances, women can go to a closer clinic or Planned Parenthood and video-chat a live, somewhere-in-state abortion provider who prescribes and (virtually, via on-site clinic staff) hands over the meds. “There is no increased risk of complications with a telemedicine visit,” says Daniel Grossman, MD, director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. He led a groundbreaking study published last fall that found telemedicine abortions are just as safe as those in which a woman swallows mifepristone in the same room as a physician.

While mifepristone has so far demonstrated a highly-safe success rate (its rates of complications are fewer than most common pain relievers), it cannot be obtained over-the-counter; instead a clinic, hospital, or doctor's office must dispense it.

Some states will allow a pregnant person to video chat with a doctor from her home and then receive both pills in the mail. Since 2008, though, 19 states have challenged the expansion of telemedicine abortions by passing laws that specifically require mifepristone to be dispensed "in the physical presence of the prescribing clinician."

Planned Parenthood continues to expand its telemedicine program despite the challenges. It has now established 24 telemedicine locations in the nation and plans to add at least 10 additional locations--some in new states--throughout this year. 

To find out if telemedicine abortion is available in your area, call the national Planned Parenthood hotline at 800-230-PLAN.

February 13, 2018 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Anti-Choice Movement, Current Affairs, In the Media, Medical News, Politics, Pregnancy & Childbirth, Pro-Choice Movement, Reproductive Health & Safety | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Millennials have a surprising view on later-term abortions

Washington Post (January 31, 2018): Millennials have a surprising view on later-term abortions, by Eugene Scott:

This past Monday, the United States Senate voted to block a proposed 20-week ban on abortion care approved by the House of Representatives. A Quinnipiac poll from January 2017, however, may reveal the unpopularity of later-term abortion with millennial voters. At the very least, Scott posits, the controversy around later-term abortion will continue into the next generation.

The poll found that 49 percent of respondents ages 18 to 34 would support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Only individuals aged 35 to 49 responded more favorably to a proposed ban. The survey found that 35 percent of millennials think abortion should be legal in all cases, while 9 percent of millennials think abortion should be illegal in all cases.

The Senate voted 51 to 46 on a procedural hurdle, falling short of the 60 votes needed. Democratic senators like Angus King (I-ME) explained that more than 99% of abortions in the United States take place before 20 weeks, and that the proposed ban is "a solution in search of a problem."

Young anti-choice activists hope that an opposition to later-term abortion care will resonate with a wide swath of young voters. Maria, Lebron, a 19-year old student at Catholic University, hopes to shift the anti-choice movement away from its religious and political affiliations to a movement that emphasizes standing for "the baby" and for "the mother." "It cannot only be focused on the unborn," Lebron says.

The culture battle over abortion isn't over, Scott argues, and 45 years after Roe v. Wade, millennials show little sign of resolving the issue.

February 3, 2018 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Anti-Choice Movement, Congress | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 6, 2017

Texas' Ban on Safe Abortion Procedure Goes to Court

San Antonio Current (Nov. 2, 2017): Texas' Ban on Safe Abortion Procedure Goes to Court, by Alex Zielinski

The trial fighting Texas' latest anti-abortion law, Senate Bill 8, began last week. Whole Woman's Health sued Texas in July after the governor signed SB 8 into law.

SB 8 would completely prohibit dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion procedures, require clinics to bury the remains of any abortion, and prohibit hospitals from donating aborted fetal tissue to medical research.

The current lawsuit, though, only challenges the ban on D&E abortions. Dilation and evacuation abortions are considered one of the safest procedures for abortions after 13 weeks. The ban does not allow for exceptions in the cases of rape or incest. The only alternatives to a D&E procedure for a woman seeking an abortion are either inducing labor and forcing delivery of the fetus or a surgery similar to a hysterectomy. Both options are risky and expensive. 

In August, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel temporarily blocked the law from going into effect on September 1. On November 2, the plaintiffs returned to Judge Yeakel's courtroom to request the bill's D&E ban be permanently blocked. 

Yeakel has thus far supported a woman's constitutionally-protected right to abortion, saying: "The state cannot pursue its interest in a way that denies a woman her constitutionally protected rights to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus is viable." 

 

November 6, 2017 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Anti-Choice Movement, Current Affairs, In the Courts, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Chilean Court Upholds Right to Abortion

Tribunal Constitucional de Chile (Aug. 21, 2017):

A Chilean court has upheld a law decriminalizing abortion in cases of rape, fatal fetal impairment, and when a woman's life is in danger.  A group of conservative senators representing more than a quarter of the members of Senate challenged the law's constitutionality.

The decision is grounded in international human rights treaties.  With these rights in mind, and in view of the effect of pregnancy on women, the court concluded that the criminal law should be used only as a last resort.

Regarding the "threat to the woman's life" criterion, the Court has decided that only assessment of the physician attending the woman is necessary in order not to delay the provision of care.

The opinions of two physicians are required in an assessment of whether a case is one of "fatal fetal impairment."  The Court warned against "decisional paralysis" in such cases, since delay can pose a danger to the patient.

Finally, in cases of rape, a child under the age of 14 must have an abortion before 14 weeks of gestation, while an older patient has under 12 weeks of gestation.

Even though it remains under in the Inter-American human rights systems whether artificial legal persons have the right to conscientious objection, the Court, intending to promote freedom of conscience and religion, ruled that hospitals and clinics may lodge institutional conscientious objections to abortion.

September 21, 2017 in Abortion Bans, In the Courts, International | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, August 4, 2017

Study Finds States With More Abortion Restrictions Score Worse On Women's Health

WBUR 90.9 (Aug. 1, 2017): States With More Abortion Restrictions Score Worse On Women's Health, Study Finds, by Eojin Choi

A newly released report by Ibis Reproductive Health and the Center for Reproductive Rights found that the the twenty-six states with more than ten abortion restrictions had poorer health outcomes for women than the twenty-four states with fewer than ten restrictions.

Titled Evaluating Priorities: Measuring Women's and Children's Health and Well-being Against Abortion Restrictions in the States, the report's findings challenge anti-choice politicians' claims of passing abortion restrictions under the guise of protecting women's health and safety.

Some examples of positive, supportive policies include Medicaid expansion, expanded family and medical leave, mandated evidence-based sex education, maternal mortality review boards, and contraceptive parity laws. The study found that many states with more abortion restrictions lack these supportive policies.

The report was first published in 2014 and is updated for 2017. You can read the full report here.

August 4, 2017 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Pregnancy & Childbirth | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Federal Judge Blocks Arkansas from Enforcing Four Abortion Restrictions

Winston-Salem Journal/Associated Press (Jul. 30, 2017): Judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing four abortion restrictions, by Andrew DeMillo

A federal judge in Arkansas blocked four new abortion restrictions from taking effect, including a ban on dilation & evacuation (D&E, the safest and most common second-trimester procedure), a sex-selection ban, and a fetal-remains restriction that would have effectively required a partner's consent prior to having an abortion. The ruling came down from U.S. District Court Judge Kristine Baker. The Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the case on behalf of Little Rock, Arkansas provider Dr. Frederick Hopkins.

D&E bans are currently in effect in Mississippi and West Virginia and are blocked in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. This year, Texas passed an identical ban that is slated to become effective in September but is being challenged in court.

The sex-selection ban included a provision requiring that a doctor performing the abortion first request records related to the entire pregnancy history of the woman. Judge Baker struck down the restriction, noting that the provision "will cause women to forgo abortion in Arkansas rather than risk disclosure to medical providers who they know oppose abortion or who are family friends or neighbors."

The fourth struck-down law required physicians performing abortions on minors under 17 years of age to preserve embryonic or fetal tissue and notify police where the minor resides. Arkansas currently enforces such a requirement for minors under 14 years of age.

August 3, 2017 in Abortion, Abortion Bans | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Chile Moves to Ease Strict Abortion Laws

Al Jazeera (Jul. 19, 2017): Chile Moves to Ease Strict Abortion Laws, by AFP News Agency:

In 1989, the dictatorial regime of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte outlawed abortion in Chile in all cases. Almost 30 years later, the law remains unchanged.

In 2015, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet advanced a proposal to decriminalize abortion at up to 12 weeks if the pregnant person's physical health was at risk, if the fetus would not survive the pregnancy, or in cases of rape. The reform also included an 18-week window for pregnant individuals under the age of 14. President Bachelet urged Chilean lawmakers to take up the legislation before the country's elections are held in November. The government's lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, has already approved the reforms and the issue now lies before the Senate, which began consideration on Monday, July 17th.

Consideration in the Senate did not come without hurdles. Senate President Andres Zaldivar advanced a proposal arguing that abortion when the mother's life is at risk should not legally be considered an abortion. That measure failed by just one vote following five hours of debate. The legislation finally passed the Senate in the early hours of Wednesday after a 17-hour session, and is now under reconsideration by the Chamber of Deputies. Should the law pass the lower chamber, it will head to President Bachelet for final approval.

Chile is one of just six countries in the world where individuals can be prosecuted for seeking an abortion irrespective of circumstances.

July 20, 2017 in Abortion, Abortion Bans | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Planned Parenthood: Indiana Judge's Ruling a Victory for Young Women

Saint Louis Post-Dispatch (Jun. 29, 2017): Planned Parenthood: Judge's Ruling a Victory for Young Women, by Rick Callahan (AP): 

A federal judge in Indiana Thursday blocked part of a new law that would have required a judge to determine whether a pregnant minor's parents should be notified if she sought an abortion. Republican Governor Holcomb of Indiana, who signed the law in April, frames it as a "parental rights issue."

Reagan-nominated U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker who enjoined the provision also blocked two additional provisions--one requiring physicians to verify the relationship between a minor and her parents or guardians and another that would have prevented anyone assisting an un-emancipated minor seeking an abortion.

Attorney General Curtis Hill has not yet decided if he will appeal the Judge Barker's decision to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

July 4, 2017 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Anti-Choice Movement, In the Courts, Pro-Choice Movement, Teenagers and Children | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, June 22, 2017

How Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Win Even While Losing in Court

Texas Observer (Jun. 20, 2017): How Texas' Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Win Even While Losing in Court, by Sophie Novack:

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8 into law, "an omnibus measure that mandates burdensome clinic regulations and outlaws a safe, common abortion procedure" known as dilation & evacuation, or D&E. SB 8 is the most sweeping set of restrictions on abortion care signed into law in Texas since House Bill 2 in 2013, culminating in last year's Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down two of the bill's major provisions. A lawsuit against SB 8 is expected later this summer.

Novack argues that while abortion-rights advocates ultimately claimed victory in the courts over HB 2, the law "forced the closure of more than half the state’s abortion clinics, and only three have reopened since." The main issue for abortion-rights advocates, Novack says is that "legislation often moves faster than the courts, and SB 8 could wreak similar havoc on the abortion provider community in Texas.

“We’re looking at again the possibility of clinic closures and other restrictions that force women to leave the state if they need abortion care,' said Amanda Allen, senior state legislative counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit against HB 2 and has pledged to fight SB 8. 'In terms of access on the ground, this presents a huge threat to Texas.”

The major provisions at issue in SB 8 are a requirement that fetal remains be buried or cremated, and a ban on D&E, the most common form of second-trimester procedure. Abortion-rights advocates take some comfort in knowing that both of these provisions have been successfully challenged in court, but if either provision goes into effect, clinics could face closure for failure to comply with the law.

Texas Right to Life pushed the D&E ban, while Texas Alliance for Life championed the fetal burial/cremation requirement. Each group has a different strategy: Texas Right to Life favors pushing the D&E ban to the Supreme Court, while Texas Alliance for Life favors "a more incremental approach" that chips away at access until the Supreme Court becomes less favorable to abortion rights. Said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life: "it’s very clear now that [Justice Kennedy] will not uphold any state or federal provision that makes abortion less accessible, that’s the unfortunate reality."

In January, a federal judge blocked new Texas regulations that would’ve required burials for fetal remains. Courts have blocked D&E abortion bans in four other states. While it remains to be seen how courts will decide on SB 8, the battle will be long, and if it plays out like HB 2, there could be lasting consequences.

June 22, 2017 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Anti-Choice Movement, Current Affairs, In the Courts, Pro-Choice Movement, State Legislatures | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Idaho to Stop Enforcing Ban on Telemedicine Abortions

Spokesman-Review (Boise) (Jan. 23, 2017): Idaho to Stop Enforcing Telemedicine Abortion Bans, by Kimberlee Kruesi:

Two laws hindering women from obtaining safe abortions have been dismantled in Idaho.  The first curtailed the use of telemedicine to assist women choosing medical abortions.  Telemedicine allows physicians to consult with their patients remotely.  It can be especially useful in delivering medical services in rural areas.  The law required a physician to be present when a patient receives abortion-inducing medication.  The second law simply forbade physicians from prescribing pregnancy-ending drugs remotely.  

Planned Parenthood sued Idaho to dismantle these laws.  A settlement entered into between the parties requires Idaho to repeal these laws by 2017 or have them declared unconstitutional in federal court.  A federal judge has already ruled that requiring a physician's physical presence  imposes an undue burden on women seeking medical abortions with no counterbalancing health benefits.  A similar restriction was struck down by the Iowa Supreme Court in 2015.    

 

March 15, 2017 in Abortion Bans, State Legislatures | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Anti-choicers get even weirder: After losing in the Supreme Court, abortion foes turn to desperate distortion

Salon (August 17, 2016): Anti-choicers get even weirder: After losing in the Supreme Court, abortion foes turn to desperate distortion, by Amanda Marcotte 

In the wake of the landmark victory of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, Amanda Marcotte argues that the anti-choice movement has been "sent back to the drawing board" and their two new tactics are spins on old classics: "first, trying to trick people into thinking embryos are babies and then trying to trick people into thinking abortion is too medically dangerous to be allowed." Some newly proposed regulations in Texas, Louisiana  and Indiana require women to have a funeral for the 'remains' of a miscarriage or abortion.  So far the regulations have been held up in the court.

While these regulations are said to have been "quietly" proposed, anti-choice advocates are a little louder about making claims that abortions are dangerous.  Their problem is that statistics published by places like the CDC and Guttmacher show that abortion is extremely safe.  Rather than changing their claims, anti-choice supporters argue that they just need more statistics. While these claims seem ridiculous, Marcotte argues that there's a silver lining:

 Considering the lengthy history of anti-choice violence against medical providers, this kind of behavior is deeply worrisome.But it also shows the depths of desperation of the anti-choice movement. More data collection will just prove how safe abortion is, and funerals for embryos just remind everyone what kind of sick fantasy lives anti-choice activists have.

 

September 6, 2016 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Anti-Choice Movement, State Legislatures | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 15, 2016

Mike Pence Has Led The Fight Against Reproductive Rights For Half A Decade

Huffington Post (July 14, 2016): Mike Pence Has Led The Fight Against Reproductive Rights For Half A Decade, by Laura Bassett:

Sources say that Trump is likely to pick Mike Pence as his running mate for the 2016 election - news that is particularly bad for reproductive rights. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards is quoted in the article, reflecting on how 'obsessed' Pence was with destroying Planned Parenthood over the course of his career; indeed, he wrote the first bill that aimed to swipe all federal funding for the reproductive rights organization. More recently, in March, Pence signed into law a bill that, among other abortion restrictions, requires doctors to offer the "remains" of abortions to their patients. 

While anti-choice activists are bolstered by the rumors of the pick, pro-choice organizations know Pence's history, and what is at stake: 

 “Pence has a rich history of marginalizing women as a politician, the same way Donald Trump has     throughout his career and this campaign,” said Marcy Stech, a spokesperson for the pro-choice PAC     EMILY’s List. “Together, they are a perfect storm of classic, out of touch, GOP extremism. For the very     few women still not convinced that Trump isn’t a threat to women, Gov. Pence should do it—these     men are not to be trusted.”

July 15, 2016 in 2016 Presidential Campaign, Abortion, Abortion Bans | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Anti-Abortion Group Presses Ahead Despite Recent Supreme Court Ruling

New York Times (July 9, 2016): Anti-Abortion Group Presses Ahead Despite Recent Supreme Court Ruling, by Erik Eckholm:

The National Right to Life Committee met last week to discuss  its strategy in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The Supreme Court struck down Texas admitting privileges and ambulatory surgical requirements imposed on abortion clinics, finding that they imposed an undue burden on women's access to abortion.  The case should make it difficult for states to justify targeted regulation of abortion providers, or TRAP laws, which impose more stringent regulatory requirements on doctors and facilities providing abortions than other comparable medical procedures.  

Leaders of the NRLC indicated that rather than pushing TRAP laws, they will focus on passing legislation with the explicit purpose of protecting the fetus.  Unlike TRAP laws that purport to impose medical regulations on abortions for the purpose of making the procedure safer (which the Supreme Court found was untrue in the case of the Texas regulations), laws seeking to protect the "humanity of the unborn" introduce a state purpose and benefit not at issue in Hellerstedt. 

However, the two types of laws promoted by the NLRC pose their own constitutional problems.  The NLRC is encouraging states to pass laws that ban abortion at 20 weeks (15 states have already passed 20 week bans) based on claims that the fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.  However current Supreme Court precedent prohibits bans on abortion prior to fetal viability, which is generally understood to occur at 22 weeks.  There is also questionable medical support for the theory that the fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, which is significant given the enhanced scrutiny that the Court employed in Hellerstedt to determine that the Texas regulations did not have the medical benefits claimed by the state. 

The second provision backed by the NLRC would ban a technique used in second trimester abortions known as dilation and evacuation (D & E), which results removal of the fetus in parts.  Only about 10% of abortions are performed after 12 weeks of pregnancy, and the provision does not change the situations in which women are entitled to obtain abortions.  However, it significantly limits doctor and patient choice about how the procedure is performed.  D & E  is the most common form of second trimester abortion and is viewed by many doctors as the safest and most convenient technique for a later abortion.  D & E bans have passed in Oklahoma and Kansas but have been blocked by courts because of their intrusion on women's medical procedures and because they could endanger women's health by exposing them to unneeded or more dangerous procedures. 

 

July 12, 2016 in Abortion Bans, State Legislatures | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 27, 2016

Victory in the Supreme Court

United States Supreme Court (Jun. 27, 2016): Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt:

In a 5-to-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court has overturned a Texas law that threatened to drive more than half of Texas's abortion clinics out of business and place abortion services beyond the reach of countless women. 

Drawing on tenets established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, the Court struck down a law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital and requiring clinics performing abortions to meet the standards imposed upon surgical centers. Regarding the admitting privileges requirement, the Court noted that the practice of abortion did not present a safety issue.  Moreover, abortion is safe enough that requiring clinics to meet the requirements of surgical centers would be superfluous.  Finally, the court could not reconcile the law with the lack of regulation of more dangerous surgical procedures and the wide distribution of waivers of the surgical-center requirements to clinics offering non-abortion services.  It declared that the restrictions placed substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking previability abortions in Texas. 

June 27, 2016 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Supreme Court, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

How Did I Get an Abortion in Texas? I Didn’t.

New York Times (June 15, 2016): How Did I Get an Abortion in Texas? I Didn’t. by Valerie Peterson:

A native of Texas writes about her surprise pregnancy and the high-risk nature of it. Carrying her third, unexpected, child, she delves into the complications that led her to need an abortion in a state that didn't allow for it. Because of the timing of the author's pregnancy and Texas' restrictions, she had to explore options to terminate out of state. In a candid and honest account, Peterson speaks to and for the women in Texas that remain worried about the impending SCOTUS decision, especially those who aren't as privileged as she:

Through a friend, I was connected to a clinic in Florida that caters to women who are terminating for medical reasons, and I spoke to the doctor and nurse there. The doctor explained that Florida didn’t have a 24-hour waiting period, and they could get me in the next day. I booked the first plane ticket I found. I got a hotel room and rental car. I flew to Florida on Friday, and my procedure was over by Saturday afternoon.   Including the cost of the procedure, I had to spend close to $5,000.

I remember thinking: What happens to women in my situation who don’t have the ability to do what I just did? My heart aches for those women.

June 21, 2016 in Abortion, Abortion Bans | Permalink | Comments (0)

Planned Parenthood sues Mississippi over defunding law

Washington Post (June 15, 2016): Planned Parenthood sues Mississippi over defunding law, by Emily Wagster Pettus:

Even though Planned Parenthood Southeast only received $439 from Medicaid in Mississippi from July 2013- August 2015, Planned Parenthood is suing the state over a new law that bans Mississippi Medicaid from spending money with any health care provider that offers abortion. 

Planned Parenthood Southeast only runs one Mississippi clinic in Hattiesburg, which doesn't even offer abortions.  However, other clinics run by the Southeast affiliate in Alabama and Georgia do provide abortions.  Planned Parenthood of the Greater Memphis Region has also joined in the suit because it receives Mississippi Medicaid payment and provides abortions in its Memphis clinic.  Mississippi law already prohibits the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or danger to the pregnant woman's life.  The new law prevents the use of Medicaid funds to pay for other health care services provided by Planned Parentood clinics to Mississippi residents such as birth control and cancer screenings.

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program.  Federal law provides that persons enrolled in Medicaid can receive health care services from any participating provider of their choice.  In April the director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent a letter reminding all 50 states that they can't cut funding to Planned Parenthood because it may also provide abortion services.

Twenty-four states have considered or enacted laws restricting Planned Parenthood from receiving public funds. The Mississippi case is the 17th lawsuit Planned Parenthood has filed against a state since last July.

 

June 21, 2016 in Abortion, Abortion Bans | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 20, 2016

A Conversation With Award-Winning "Trapped" Filmmaker Dawn Porter

Rewire (June 15, 2016): TRAP Laws and the Abortion ‘Crisis’: A Conversation With Award-Winning Filmmaker Dawn Porter, by Tina Vasquez 

Rewire talks with award-winning filmmaker Dawn Porter about her new documentary feature, TRAPPED, which highlights the popular and pervasive TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) across the United States.  Between 2010 and 2105, 288 laws regulating abortion services have passed.  Porter's documentary illustrates the toll it takes on women in states like Alabama and Texas. Porter is candid about her thoughts about the impending SCOTUS decision, safety concerns when filming, and her reasoning for focusing on TRAP laws specifically: 

People often discuss abortion in terms of morality, but that’s not what we should be talking about. The reason why these laws have been so effective is  because they successfully harm the least powerful of the group they’re targeting. Who’s getting picked on, who’s suffering the most? Women of color,  people who are low-income, people who don’t have health insurance. There’s something so unjust about how these laws are disproportionately affecting these populations, and that really bothered me. I’m certainly interested in abortion as a topic, but I’m also interested in politics and power  and how those things take shape to hurt the most vulnerable.

TRAPPED airs on PBS’ Independent Lens on Monday, June 20th at 10:00pm

June 20, 2016 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Film, In the Media | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACLU of Texas Demands DSHS Stop Concealing Abortion Statistics

ACLU of Texas (June 15, 2016), t ACLU of Texas Demands DSHS Stop Concealing Abortion Statistics, by Anna Núñez

The Texas department of State Health Services has gathered abortion statistics for 2014, after the passage of the restrictive HB2, which is currently being challenged as unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on women seeking abortions.  The ACLU of Texas is alleging the concealment of the findings. The ACLU said in the linked statement above that they requested the stats "dozens" times, only to be rebuffed by the agency and falsely told that the statistics were not yet ready, though the findings were apparently final in March. The ACLU believes that the reasoning is clear - that DSHS isn't releasing the information because it is damaging to HB2: 

    “The State of Texas claims that HB2 protects women’s health. If that’s true, why wouldn’t our public health agency want to trumpet its success?” said     Terri Burke, executive director for the ACLU of Texas.

The letter also states that supervisors instructed employees to lie about the statistics and avoid mentioning them, in an apparent attempt to circumvent     the legal requirements of the Texas Public Information Act."

The ACLU has also written and released a letter aimed at the defendant in the pending SCOTUS case, Commissioner Hellerstedt, also linked in the above article. 

 

June 20, 2016 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 13, 2016

UN Human Rights Committee Rules Ireland's Restrictions on Abortion Violate Human Rights

Buzzfeed (June 10, 2016): Ireland's Abortion Laws Breach Women's Human Rights, UN Rules, by Rose Troup Buchanan and Jina Moore: 

Last week, the UN Human Rights Committee, found that Irish laws criminalizing abortion violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The case was brought by a woman who could not get a legal abortion in Ireland after she discovered she was carrying a fetus with fatal congenital defects.  As a result, she was forced to travel the the United Kingdom to terminate her pregnancy.  The Committee found that because Irish law does not permit an abortion in such cases, the woman was forced to choose "between continuing her non-viable pregnancy or traveling to another country while carrying a dying fetus, at personal expense and separated from the support of her family, and to return while not fully recovered."  The Human Rights Committee found that denial of an abortion under such circumstances constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and violated the right to non-discrimination and right to privacy and autonomy.

Although, Ireland has an international legal obligation to comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee's decision is not directly enforceable by Irish courts.  Instead, it will be up to the Irish government to change its laws.  This may require amendment of the Irish Constitution, which currently limits abortion to cases where the mother's life is in danger.  The Committee has given the Irish government four months to report back on its progress complying with the committee's decision.

June 13, 2016 in Abortion Bans, International | Permalink | Comments (0)