Abortion, Every Day (7.19.23)

Conservatives want to doctors to be mandatory abortion reporters

In the States

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in the ACLU’s case against state Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who has been holding up an abortion rights ballot measure. If you missed previous Abortion, Every Day coverage, here’s a short recap: Bailey refuses to sign off on the state auditor’s cost estimate of how much restoring abortion rights would cost the state. The auditor, an anti-abortion Republican, estimated about $51,000 a year; Bailey wanted him to change it to $51 billion. (Not a joke.) With the auditor and Bailey at a standstill, the ACLU sued, and a judge ordered the AG to approve the estimate. He refused, and now we’re in front of the state Supreme Court.

Here’s the rub: Pro-choice petitioners can’t start collecting signatures until Bailey signs off on the cost estimate. All of these legal challenges and delays are, of course, the point. He wants to make it impossible for abortion rights advocates to get the signatures they need to get the issue in front of voters. (Attacks on democracy seem to be Republicans’ primary anti-abortion strategy at the moment.)

Missouri ACLU lawyer Anthony Rothert says Bailey is holding the ballot measure hostage and trying to “potentially kill” it, calling the AG’s actions “a direct threat to direct democracy.” And the deputy general counsel for the state auditor’s office said this was the first time in the state’s history that an AG has tried to reject an auditor’s estimate.

The groups of women suing Texas over its abortion ban went to court today. Fifteen women who were denied abortions are party to the case; four will testify, along with an OBGYN and two emergency medicine and obstetric experts. The women, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, are not trying to get the state to overturn the law—but to clarify mandates around pregnancy complications and health conditions.

Molly Duane, senior staff attorney with CRR, said the women’s experiences “clearly demonstrate that the state’s abortion bans are endangering the health, fertility and lives of patients facing severe pregnancy complications.” The organization is asking the court to block those specific portions of the law to “prevent further irreparable harm to even more Texans.”

The court is also hearing a request from the state to dismiss the suit entirely without hearing the women’s testimony.

They don’t want America to hear their stories, and the truth about the consequences of abortion bans. (That’s why I rewatched the below ABC News segment that interviewed a few of the women behind the suit—because bearing witness is the absolute least we can do.) An attorney for Texas, Cindy Fletcher, said, “Plaintiffs simply do not like Texas' restrictions on abortion.” Simply do not like. Unbelievable.

Speaking of unbelievable: As Ohio voters get closer to their August special election that will determine the future of ballot measures in the state, Secretary of State Frank LaRose is out doing the media rounds in support of Issue 1. LaRose—who just announced a run for Senate—claims that raising the standards on ballot measures will protect the state constitution from out-of-state special interests. But here’s the hilarious part. From the Washington Examiner:

“LaRose said the Left is dishonestly trying to paint the increased threshold amendment as only about abortion, noting that the proposed amendment makes no changes to the ballot referendum process for normal legislation.

‘It's never been exclusively about abortion,’ LaRose [said].”

Really now? Because here is what LaRose said last month:

“Some people say this is all about abortion. Well, you know what, I’m pro-life. I think many of you are as well. This is 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution. The left wants to jam it in there this coming November.”

Just absolutely shameless. Also in Ohio, Truthout has more on the anti-trans ad campaign launched by anti-abortion groups there. Past ads tried to convince voters that an abortion rights ballot measure would allow children to have gender affirming surgery; the latest one is even more explicit. As Gillian Branstetter of the ACLU put it on Twitter, “When I say transphobia is a threat to democracy, I mean anti-abortion activists are using drag queens to scare Ohio voters into making it harder to amend the state [constitution] and protect abortion rights.”

Abortion rights advocates in Nebraska asked a judge today to block the 10-week ban that went into effect in May. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argue that the law violates the “single-subject” clause in the state constitution. (Republicans lumped the ban in with anti-trans legislation.) ACLU lawyer Jane Seu pointed out that the state hadn’t made any effort to prove that abortion rights and gender affirming care for minors are a single subject, and attorney Matthew Segal called the law “probably one of the gravest violations of the signal subject rule that the court has seen in a very long time.” The Lancaster County judge is taking the arguments under advisement, and will hopefully issue a ruling (and an injunction) soon.

Meanwhile, just days after a court temporarily blocked Iowa’s near-total abortion ban, Gov. Kim Reynolds says her office is working on an appeal of the injunction: “It's just a matter of time.” (Way to sound like a movie villain!) In response, Rita Bettis Austen, legal director at ACLU of Iowa, says, “whenever that appeal is filed, we will keep working together to protect the rights of Iowans to safe and legal abortion care.”

The legal challenge is expected to go to the Iowa Supreme Court, where it’s not entirely clear what might happen. Legal experts like professor Mary Ziegler have pointed out that even though the justices were all appointed by Republicans, they may see the writing on the public opinion wall. But conservatives are hoping that the ban will withstand legal scrutiny even though justices declined to reinstate a near-identical 2018 abortion ban. (That’s because the issue before the court wasn’t about the merits of the ban itself, but whether the justices should consider the 2018 law at all.) A reminder that 61% of Iowa voters support abortion in all or most cases.

In Indiana, Planned Parenthood is trying to see as many patients as possible before the near-total abortion ban goes into effect on August 1. Deborah Nucatola, chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood Great Northwest Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, says, “We're really committed to seeing every patient we can see until we can no longer provide abortion legally in Indiana.” At the same time, a religious freedom challenge to the law continues on, with the state asking a judge to deny a new request for a temporary block on the ban.

In Pennsylvania, Democrats are proposing a new set of abortion rights protections, including legislation that would prevent state law enforcement and courts from cooperating with any out-of-state prosecutions or civil cases related to abortion; increased protections for providers’ home addresses; protection for medical records related to abortion care; and mandates that insurance companies and health licensure boards not take “adverse action” against patients or providers. Love to see it!

Quick hits:

• More on the $5 million fund in Oregon going towards abortion access for marginalized communities;

• Washington is holding onto its stockpile of abortion medication for now, while access remains legal;

• South Dakota abortion rights advocates continue to work towards getting a ballot measure in front of voters;

• And Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed expanded abortion access into law today, after a drawn-out controversial battle over the legislation, which allows for abortion after 24 weeks with a doctor’s recommendation.

In the Nation

You may remember that there’s been some controversy over the permanent home of U.S. Space Command: Right now, it’s headquartered in Colorado, but was meant to move to Alabama—a decision made by the Trump administration. The issue, of course, is that Alabama has a total abortion ban. And while Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has said that any decision about the headquarters will have nothing to do with abortion rights, there have been some reports to the contrary. Which makes sense! We shouldn’t be forcing service members to move to states where they can’t get healthcare.

Republicans are furious over the possibility that Space Command may not to move to Alabama as planned. So in response, they’re proposing legislation that would prevent the federal government from using abortion laws as a factor in their decision to buy or lease buildings.

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, who introduced the House bill, says, “The Biden Administration continues to inject abortion politics into otherwise non-partisan areas of the federal government, such as locations of federal offices.” It’s not exactly non-partisan if you’re stationed in Alabama and need an abortion, but sure! U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas introduced a companion bill in the Senate, and Rep. Matt Gaetz inserted a similar amendment to the defense spending bill.

Meanwhile the Los Angeles Times editorial board laid into conservative lawmakers today for their “grandstanding” over the Pentagon’s abortion policy:

“It’s disrespectful to the women in the military who serve their country and often risk their lives. How dare a member of Congress stand in the way of the military trying to help a service person travel to get healthcare they need.”

Republicans have been trying to reverse the policy, which allows service members time off and travel reimbursement if they need to leave their state for abortion care, calling it “abortion tourism.”

In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, for example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said, “they’re actually paying people to go an get abortions with American tax dollars as part of the military.” Which is, for lack of a better word, bullshit. Unfortunately, the government still makes service members pay out-of-pocket for abortion care.

And despite closed-door talks between Republicans and Defense Department leaders, no headway has been made: Sen. Tommy Tuberville is intent on continuing with his hold-up of military promotions in protest of the policy. “They didn’t prove that this was needed to help with recruiting or retention, and there’s zero evidence to support it,” Tuberville said. (Meanwhile, Tuberville has lost the support of many fellow conservatives: Hugh Hewitt wrote in The Washington Post today that the protest is “morally and strategically wrong.”)

Finally, remember when I warned yesterday about how conservative media is increasingly targeting college professors who dare say something pro-choice? Well, check out this Fox News headline today.

Quick hits:

• Abortion rights have given President Biden a bump in the polls;

• KFF on the cost and coverage of the new over-the-counter birth control pill;

• NARAL Pro-Choice America has an explainer on how to combat disinformation about abortion;

• And in Ms. magazine, a researcher writes about what American feminists could learn from the tactics of activists in Central Eastern Europe who fought back against the ‘anti-gender movement’.

Criminalizing Care

I wrote a bit yesterday about they ways that law enforcement could use digital data to target abortion patients—tagged to this chilling new report from the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. Today, The 19th has a piece about how social media messages, in particular, can be used to prosecute anyone who has an abortion or helps someone else obtain one. It’s definitely worth a read, but the thing that stuck out to me was this quote from Laurie Sobel of KFF, about how the issue isn’t just the data itself—but how the law cuts people off from their support networks and communities:

“People stop talking to their neighbors about what their plans are. The laws can be effective without any enforcement.”

This is so important. And it’s a huge piece of the conservative strategy around enforcement: encourage friends and family to turn each other in, and let fear do the rest.

When I spoke to the young woman in Texas who was denied an abortion despite a horrific fetal abnormality, for example, the thing that struck me most was the absolute isolation that she and her boyfriend faced. The law made them feel like criminals, and put them in the position of having no one to turn to for help. It’s an incredible cruelty.

In other criminalization news, I had to flag this absolutely wild quote from the VP of domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, Roger Severino. In an interview with POLITICO, the former head of HHS’ Office for Civil Rights under the Trump administration defended the 19 Republican attorneys general who want access to abortion patients out-of-state medical records:

“If someone says, ‘I’m going to kill myself’ or ‘I’m going to kill somebody else,’ medical providers are allowed and in some cases required to disclose that information to law enforcement. But if there’s an imminent threat to an unborn person in a pro-life state, this rule would prohibit the provider from disclosing that information to save that life.”

?!?! Let’s be clear: He may be using this example to explain why Republicans want to reverse the new expansion of HIPAA protections, but he’s actually saying something much more radical: that doctors should be required by law to report someone considering an abortion in the same way they’re mandated to report a patient who might kill someone or themselves.

Please understand that this is not some random, weird statement: The Heritage Foundation is a major organization who sets the conservative agenda. And what they’re arguing for is the expansion of ‘mandatory reporting’ to include abortion. That’s a big fucking deal.

Anti-Choice Strategy: Local Ordinances

I’ve written a few times about West Wendover, Nevada—where the city council denied a permit for Planned Parenthood to open up a clinic. The move is part of a broader anti-choice trend that Abortion, Every Day has been following: banning abortion via town ordinance in pro-choice states. The strategy is meant to do two things: target border towns, where providers might be able to help out-of-state patients; and set up a legal challenge that could make its way to the Supreme Court. (The latter reason is why conservative lawyer Jonathan Mitchell—architect of the Texas bounty hunter law—is involved in all this.)

This week, Mother Jones has a really terrific piece about how this strategy is playing out in West Wendover—and how anti-abortion activists who don’t give a shit about Nevada are harming real people in a real community. This one is a must-read.

What Conservatives Are Saying

And finally, it’s time to talk more about anti-choice messaging. Term of the day? ‘Abortion tourism’. It’s a term being used more and more by conservatives—both to describe issues like the Pentagon’s abortion policy and those traveling to pro-choice states. (A conservative publication in Kansas, for example, used the term multiple times this week to describe the increase in out-of-state abortion patients.)

‘Abortion tourism’ comes straight from ultra-conservative organizations like Focus on the Family (who dedicate a whole webpage to the supposed issue), crisis pregnancy centers, and anti-abortion regulars like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. The idea is to make abortion protections—and overwhelmed doctors doing their best to help medical refugees from other states—sound as nefarious as possible. I’m going to keep a close eye on this one.