Abortion, Every Day (8.4.23)

Crisis pregnancy centers say lying to women is 'free speech'

In the States

This stinks: A judge has blocked Illinois’ law banning anti-abortion centers from putting out deceptive ads or lying to women. U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston says the law is a violation of the First Amendment, because apparently free speech means that religious groups posing as medical clinics should be able to lie to women about vital health information.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who signed the law into effect last week, said, “I’m disappointed that the far-right is interfering with the ability for women to access safe medical care without deception or lies,” but that he is “confident that the law will ultimately be found constitutional.” Anti-abortion activists are using ‘free speech’ quite a lot these days—not just in terms of defending anti-abortion centers’ ability to lie to women, but also in lawsuits seeking to end buffer zones around abortion clinics.

Ohio’s special election is fast approaching, and by next week we’ll know whether the standards on ballot measures in the states will be raised. (Republicans are pushing Issue 1, which would require 60% of the vote to pass a measure, and signatures from every single county in order to get an issue on the ballot to begin with.)

As I pointed out earlier this week, the good news is that there’s been a huge turnout for early voting. Today, for example, the Associated Press reports that poll workers are completely overwhelmed. A representative from the board of elections in Stark County told reporters, “This is gubernatorial-level turnout.” More good news: Early data shows that Democrats are casting more votes than Republicans, and women are turning out in higher numbers than men.

Meanwhile, Ohio Republicans continue attacking democracy. Secretary of State Frank LaRose has been lobbying heavily in support of Issue 1—which the Libertarian Party in the state points out violates the Hatch Act, a federal law prohibiting state officials from using their authority to interfere with elections. From Travis Irvine, the communications director for Libertarian Party of Ohio:

“The problem is Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose is receiving federal funds to administer elections in the state of Ohio and in doing so, he basically cannot affect an election himself as a public official. And therein lies the problem—with Frank LaRose going out there campaigning in favor of Issue 1 while supposedly having to be an impartial election administrator.”

LaRose clearly doesn’t give a shit, and said in an interview this week that it’s “crucial to pass Issue 1 so I’ve been proudly speaking out on it.” But it’s not just LaRose is using his role to support Issue 1 in spite of federal law, he’s lying about the pro-choice ballot measure heading to voters. LaRose said that the amendment “specifically says parents won’t be involved” in abortion decisions for their minor children and that pro-choicers “took the pretty extreme step of saying the parents can’t be involved in those decisions when their children make them.”

There is not one word about children or parents in the proposed amendment. Not one.

As we wait for the outcome of the special election, I’m glad to see that the issue is getting national media attention: This week, The Washington Post put out an explainer on Issue 1; Slate calls the election this year’s most important vote for abortion rights; and Michelle Goldberg at The New York Times wrote a column getting into all of the anti-democratic attacks we’ve been outlining here for months, and how much is at stake in Ohio’s election.

Speaking of ballot measure fights: NPR looks at the effort underway in Florida to get abortion rights in front of voters. To recap: Republicans in the state recently passed a 6-week abortion ban, but there’s a 15-week ban already in effect. The state Supreme Court is expected to come down with a ruling on a challenge to that existing ban soon, the decision of which could pave the way for the enforcement of the newer 6-week ban.

In the meantime, pro-choice advocates are collecting signatures in support of an amendment that would restore abortion rights in the state. They’ve collected about half of the signatures they need—approximately 891,000 by February 1, 2024. If they do gather those signatures, there’s another hurdle in front of abortion rights activists: Florida was successful in raising the standards on ballot measures, so the amendment would need 60% of the vote to pass. I still think they can do it!

On Monday, I told you that Rep. Tricia Cotham—the North Carolina lawmaker who switched parties and gave Republicans the votes they needed to ban abortion—was likely a GOP plant. Now, Democrats in the state are requesting campaign donation refunds, including Rep. Jeff Jackson, who says that Cotham “misrepresented herself” during the election. The Charlotte Observer reports that Jackson’s campaign got back $1,000 after requesting the refund, and that other refunds included everything from a $5600 donation to a $50 one. Good for them, get that money back!

Also in North Carolina, pro-choice nurses in the state have established a new organization, NC Nurses for Reproductive Rights, to advocate for abortion, gender-affirming care, contraception and more. NC Health News reports that Jill Sergison, a certified nurse-midwife, founded the group in response to the recently-passed ban and seeing how doctors were often the only medical professionals represented as opposing to the law. “Everyone needs to see it’s not just doctors supporting reproductive rights; it’s nurses too,” she says.

Another member of the group, Maria Ellis—a Durham-based nurse who works in maternity care—NC Health News that nurses have a unique perspective to offer in policy conversations about the real-life impact of abortion bans:

“Whether that work is early pregnancy counseling, abortion care, working in clinics that provide contraception and maternity care, it’s often a nurse you’re talking to first. They’re the ones that are triaging, getting a story and trying to help coordinate the care. I think there’s a lot that we can share to really express how important this type of health care is.”

In Iowa, where Attorney General Brenna Bird announced this week that the ban on reimbursing rape victims for emergency contraception would be permanent, Democrats in the state are firing back. In a letter to Bird, state Senate lawmakers wrote that “this deprivation [of funding] is yet another violation to the victim’s bodily autonomy.” A reminder that the majority of victims served by the funding in Iowa were children who had been victimized.

Michigan abortion providers report that they’re already seeing patients coming from Indiana, where abortion is effectively banned. (The ban isn’t technically enacted until the state Supreme Court certifies its decision, but most clinics in the state have stopped providing care.) Most Indiana patients, however, are headed to Illinois for care, because Michigan has a 24-hour waiting period before someone can obtain an abortion. In related news, an Indiana columnist is calling for voters to have the ability to vote on issues using ballot measures: “Lawmakers often say they trust Indiana voters, so maybe it’s time they show it.”

Love this: The 19th spoke to Greta Kemp Martin, the Democratic candidate for Mississippi attorney general who is running against current Republican AG Lynn Fitch (the woman whose office represented the state in Dobbs). Martin, a litigation director for Disability Rights Mississippi, says she didn’t want Fitch to run unopposed:

“I jumped in the race at this time because, plain and simple, Mississippi just deserves better than what we have in our current attorney general. They deserve a person who’s going to be the people’s lawyer and someone that respects their health care freedom and privacy. They deserve someone that’s gonna fight for them, because I think the state is worth fighting for.”

Last bit of state news: Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has been getting a ton of deserved backlash after signing onto a letter with 18 other Republican attorneys general who want to reverse a HIPAA policy that would prevent them from obtaining the medical records of women who get out-of-state abortions. Over the last week or so, the AGs have come out one-by-one to defend themselves, claiming that they simply want to protect women. Now Skrmetti—who was told off recently in a supremely satisfying way—has joined in, telling a Nashville television station that he has no interest in prosecuting women who get abortions outside of Tennessee. Instead, he claims that he needs women’s out-of-state medical records to track abortion medication that’s being shipped into Tennessee. If you’re confused, it’s because that explanation makes no fucking sense! They will say anything but the truth.

Quick hits:

• The judge hearing the case over Missouri’s abortion rights ballot measure language says he will rule quickly after the September 11th trial;

• WBEZ in Chicago looks at the new hotline in Illinois created to help high-risk patients obtain abortions;

• A pro-choice rally in Kentucky urges people to keep hope and “stay pissed”;

• And The Salt Lake Tribune predicts poverty increases—especially among children—a a result of Utah’s new abortion restrictions.

In the Nation

• ‘Military wives’ are pressuring Sen. Tommy Tuberville to stop blocking military nominations and promotions;

• Jezebel looks at the ‘double deserts’ I reported on earlier this week—counties where there isn’t abortion access or maternal health care;

• The Los Angeles Times with a column on how “anti-abortion zealots are out to sabotage America’s successful global fight against HIV”;

• POLITICO on Democrats’ last anti-abortion incumbent;

• Ms. magazine has a run-down of the lawsuit seeking to bankrupt Planned Parenthood;

• And over at The Hill, the executive director of the Institute for Free Speech calls on Twitter to use their rebrand as an opportunity to re-commit to free speech (especially on abortion.)

Stats & Studies

A new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, and Washington State University show that nearly 42% of U.S. women of reproductive age have to drive 30 minutes or more if they want to get to an abortion clinic. But that’s not all: the researchers say that if other state bills being considered are passed, that number will increase to 53% of American women having to travel 30 minutes or more.

And right now, nearly 30% of women have to drive 60 minutes or more to get to an abortion clinic; 24% don’t have access within a 90-minute drive. (Those figures would jump to 46% and 43% respectively, they write, if bills under consideration are passed.)

From the authors:

“Access does not simply rely on states' abortion laws, but rather is a product of geographic access, legislative access and health care professional availability. Even within a state where abortion is not restricted, the time it takes for a person to travel to an abortion facility can vary widely.”

Attacks on Abortion Providers

I’m very glad to say that the suspicious package left in front of a Kansas abortion clinic didn’t contain any explosives, though it’s unclear what was in the package. The incident shut down a major road in the area, and obviously scared the shit out of a lot of people. We know that harassment and violence against clinics and providers has been on a disturbing rise since Roe was overturned, and Zach Gingrich-Gaylord, communications director for the Trust Women clinic, offers us this important reminder:

“This violence does not come from nowhere. It is a direct effect of the continued attacks on abortion rights by anti-abortion media, activists and legislators who irresponsibly use flagrant misinformation and hyperbolic and triggering imagery to advance their political goals.”

Care Denied

For nearly a year, I’ve been writing about conservatives’ strategy of blaming doctors when women are denied health- and life-saving abortions. They’ve long known that their laws were going to hurt and kill people, and so they’ve been laying the groundwork to argue that doctors and hospitals are simply “misunderstanding” or “misreading” the law. In a letter to the editor this week at The Oregonian, for example, the head of Oregon Right to Life, Lois Anderson, claims that anti-abortion laws don’t apply “to saving the life of the mother” and that “the law is clear.”

The real problem Anderson writes, is that doctors became afraid “when pro-abortion activists started casting doubt on clear life-of-the-mother exceptions,” and that those who suggest the law doesn’t protect women’s lives “is nothing less than reckless and negligent.”

As I wrote back in October, they set the world on fire and want to blame the people pointing out that it’s burning. This tactic is only going to gain momentum as more horror stories come out across the country—they’re repeating it in op-eds, interviews, cable television hits and letters to the editor. (Remember what I said about message repetition earlier this week?)

Law professor Mary Ziegler wrote about this strategy in a column for The Boston Globe yesterday, and how it’s in direct response to all of those horror stories—which Republicans know hold an incredible amount of power. “The more that heartbreaking stories…are told in court and in the news, the further behind the antiabortion movement will fall in the battle for hearts and minds,” she writes. That’s why, Ziegler argues, conservatives aren’t just blaming doctors, but trying to stop women from being able to share their experiences with abortion bans at all:

“That’s why lawyers for states like Texas are trying to keep patients out of court altogether. In the current lawsuit brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Texas tried to stop the plaintiffs from telling their stories by arguing that they didn’t have standing to sue.”

Criminalizing Care

Abortion, Every Day reported on Monday about the Alabama healthcare providers who are suing state Attorney General Steve Marshall in an effort to stop him from prosecuting anyone who helps people leave the state for abortion care. (Marshall said in a radio interview that activists who help women travel out-of-state for abortions would face “conspiracy” and “accessory” charges.)

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson said that Marshall “will continue to vigorously enforce Alabama laws protecting unborn life…that includes abortion providers conspiring to violate the [law].” They also said that Alabama’s law “does not target women seeking abortions…it focuses on those who facilitate or conduct illegal abortions.” Please note that word facilitate. The statement couldn’t be clearer.

To be honest, I’m glad Marshall isn’t bothering to hide the fact that he plans to target those who help Alabamians get abortion care. He’s saying aloud what so many Republicans in other states are obviously working towards, but refuse to admit.

Also important to remember: In January, Abortion, Every Day uncovered Marshall’s plan to prosecute women who take abortion medication using a ‘chemical endangerment’ law. The plan was always to go after abortion patients. In fact, Alabama law enforcement has already used ‘chemical endangerment’ as an excuse to arrest pregnant women they allege are using drugs, claiming that they’re “protecting” fetuses. (For more information on this case and strategy more broadly, check out the vital work being done at Pregnancy Justice.)

Today at The Birmingham News, experts in the state say that this strategy—unsurprisingly—hasn’t helped babies, pregnant women or anyone else. It’s just made maternal and infant health more risky. Honour McDaniel, March of Dimes director of maternal and infant health initiatives for Alabama, said, “Moms are afraid of going to get prenatal care because they don’t want to be detected.”

“They love their kids. They don’t want their kids to be taken away,” she said.

In fact, a research paper published in Georgetown Law Journal about a similar tactic used in Tennessee showed that this kind of criminalization “not only fail[ed] to deliver the promised benefits in terms of improved fetal and infant health, but they actively undermine[d] the realization of that goal.”