Abortion, Every Day (12.19.23)

Ohio Republicans working on a total abortion ban in spite of Issue 1

Click to skip ahead: In Attacks on Democracy, Ohio Republicans are working on a total abortion ban in spite of Issue 1. In the States, updates on Idaho, Arizona and more. I have some Ballot Measure Updates for you on Florida and Arkansas. In Criminalizing Care, Ohio docs are coming out in support of Brittany Watts while another Texas city considers an abortion travel ban. In the Nation, Grace outlines VP Kamala Harris’ new abortion rights speaking tour. Stats & Studies show that voters want mifepristone to be available & that TV needs to do better on abortion portrayals. Finally, a Texas lawsuit asks what legal recourse women have in Suing Over Forced Pregnancy.

---

Attacks on Democracy

Ohio Republicans aren’t even bothering to hide it anymore: they’re in the middle of crafting a total abortion ban, even after voters decided to protect reproductive rights in the state constitution. And they’re making a plan to fight for it through the courts.

News 5 Cleveland reports that End Abortion Ohio is working behind the scenes with the House Pro-Life Caucus on a bill that would ban all abortions, and make it punishable as a homicide. The group is part of a growing movement of radical anti-choice activists that call themselves ‘abolitionists’—they want full fetal personhood, and for women who have abortions to be prosecuted for murder.

Austin Beigel, head of the organization, has no problem admitting that such a law would be going against the will of the people. (Issue 1 won by huge margins in November.) Beigel said, “I fully acknowledge that [but] voters can decide to do things that are immoral and evil.”

Beigel also knows that there’s a legal conflict with Issue 1—but he believes that Republicans could win in court by arguing that the pro-choice amendment violates equal protection in the U.S. constitution. Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin told News 5 Cleveland, “I don't think it's a very good argument.” Still, it could hold things up.

What’s most important, though, is something Beigel told reporters about a primary motivation this bill: he’s trying to normalize the idea of a total ban. The legislation might not go anywhere now, but he’s getting voters and lawmakers more accustomed to it each time the bill is reintroduced.

And that’s exactly what I’ve been warning about over the last year every time one of these bills are proposed. When AED broke the news about the South Carolina legislation that would have made abortion publishable by the death penalty, for example, it took months for mainstream outlets to report the same because of the assumption that the bill would go nowhere. They believed that it was unimportant because it was unlikely to pass.

But that bill had two dozen co-sponsors, and we’ve seen state after state introduce similar legislation—this isn’t some fringe idea. Dismissing it as such is like putting our fingers in our ears and ignoring reality.

By the way, the total ban isn’t the only post-Issue 1 effort that the anti-abortion movement is working on in Ohio. Other groups are drafting a new ballot measure that would overturn the recently-passed pro-choice amendment, while another is working on a 15-week ban.

In the meantime, we’re waiting to hear what happens next with the state’s existing 6-week ban, which is blocked. Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the state’s attempt to remove that block, ruling that because of a “change in law” (aka Issue 1) the issue would go back to a lower court. There, a judge will decide whether to toss the ban entirely.

In the States

I told you yesterday about the outrageous way Idaho is trying to quash a legal challenge against the state’s abortion ban: Lawyers from the state Attorney General’s office claim that the women whose lives were endangered by the ban don’t have standing to bring a suit since they’re no longer pregnant. Attorney James Craig argues that any complications or health dangers are “hypothetical.” Essentially the state is using the fact that these women had to flee their home states to get health- and life-saving care against them. It’s noxious.

In the Idaho Capital Sun today, a husband of one of those women spoke out, and he was furious. From John Adkins, Jennifer Adkins’ husband:

“Let me speak directly to the men and say, your wives, your daughters, your sisters, your grandchildren are at risk. It is not safe to be pregnant in the state of Idaho, and their complete silence is complicity in that.”

I’m writing a column about this at the moment, but wanted to flag it here too: it is so vital that men are speaking up right now. Loudly and consistently.

Please tell me why someone thought it would be a good idea to have three men do a panel discussion of the abortion case in front of the Arizona Supreme Court? I’ll be honest, I was going to let it slide and just give this a quick hit if people wanted to watch—but then the Republican panelist opened with saying that he didn’t want to predict what the justices were thinking because “it’s like guessing what your wife wants for dinner, don’t bother trying, it’s not gonna work out.” Enjoy!

In South Carolina, where an all-male state Supreme Court upheld a 6-week abortion ban this summer, some Republican women are using the abortion rights battle to argue for more women in politics. The Greenville News has an interesting piece on what it means to have more women in office, pointing to the fact that a bipartisan group of female senators in South Carolina worked together to avert a near-total ban being passed.

Republican Sen. Sandy Senn says electing more women is the answer, and that “the reality though is if we had two more women who were reasonable, we would have won and we would not have a six-week ban…but we held off a total ban so for that I’m thankful.”

But we know it’s not as simple as that. That’s why I was grateful that Greenville News reporter Devyani Chhetri spoke to Amanda Roberti, a professor at San Francisco State University, who made clear that while it’s mostly men who propose anti-abortion legislation, Republican women have played a huge role in normalizing and sanitizing these bills.

“Where previous bills focused primarily on personhood and protection of fetal life, newer efforts were framing anti-abortion policies as ‘pro-woman’ or in ‘women’s best interests,’ Roberti said. It’s conservative women who led that charge.

Ballot Measure Updates

Florida abortion rights activists have gathered more than a million signatures to get abortion rights on the 2024 ballot. Not all of those signatures are verified yet, but the folks at Floridians Protecting Freedom say that they’re still on track to the get the 891,000 needed to move the measure forward. And by the way, the group says that 150,000 registered Republicans signed the petition—which isn’t surprising considering that polls show the majority of Republican voters would support the proposed amendment.

Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani says the decision of whether to be a parent or raise a child “should be made between a woman, their family, their doctor and faith and not politicians.” That’s why, Eskamani says, there’s been bipartisan support for amendment: “It really transcends party lines.”

As you know, we’re also waiting to see how the Florida Supreme Court reacts to a filing from Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody. Moody wants the Court to reject the proposed amendment, arguing that the language on ‘viability’ is deliberately misleading.

Attacks on ballot measure language has become de rigueur among Republicans across the country, who are working to keep pro-choice measures away from voters entirely.

A few weeks ago in Arkansas, for example, state Attorney General Tim Griffin rejected the language of a pro-choice ballot measure based on a number of bullshit arguments about ‘clarity’. Yesterday, abortion rights advocates submitted updated language to Griffin.

A representative from Arkansans for Limited Government says, “We’re confident that the language in this resubmission addresses all of the Attorney General’s concerns as well as input from healthcare providers and seasoned legal minds.” The updated ballot measure language would protect abortion through 18 weeks of pregnancy.

Remember, Griffin has a long history of using the power of his office to attack abortion rights: he is one of the AGs who fought to get access to women’s out-of-state abortion records, and threatened Walgreens over abortion medication. He’s also been a keynote speaker at organizations like Americans United for Life and is endorsed by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

Criminalizing Care

In Texas, yet another city is considering a travel ban to stop women from leaving the state for abortion care. The Amarillo City Council is holding a work session today to consider an anti-abortion ordinance that would make it illegal to help someone leave the state to end a pregnancy—whether by driving them, lending them gas money or evening sharing the url to an out-of-state clinic. In recent months, four Texas counties have passed similar travel bans, local policies that conservatives call ‘anti-trafficking’ ordinances.

In response, a pro-choice Christian group is making clear that they will pursue legal action if the city council passes such a ban. Texas Christians for Reproductive Justice wrote in a letter to the council that they’ll “pursue what legal recourse we have at our disposal,” but that “our prayer is that we will not have to do so.” (Love that line.) You can read the full letter here.

And while Lindsay London with the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance told The Guardian that she’s grateful city leadership has met with the group to discuss their concerns about the ordinance, she also says, “It’s five white men who are staunchly anti-abortion in our leadership. It’s kind of grim.”

---

For my more on abortion travel bans and how quickly the country has gone to accepting the unthinkable, read my column below:

Breaking the Overton Window 

---

This week, a group of Ohio doctors called on Trumbull County prosecutors to drop the charges against Brittany Watts—the woman being charged with ‘abuse of a corpse’ after having a miscarriage. You can read more about Watts’ case in yesterday’s newsletter, and support her GoFundMe here.

Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights (OPRR) wrote in a letter that they were outraged as citizens, and “deeply concerned” as physicians that the charges against Watts will deter women who have miscarriages from seeking medical care.

"We have no doubt that women facing the threat of jail time and hefty fines will conceal the fact that they have miscarried and refuse to seek treatment. That means the continued prosecution of Ms. Watts will place the lives and health of those women at risk.”

OPRR also sent the letter to the mayor of Warren, Ohio, and the head of the Warren City Council—calling on them to get the prosecutor to drop the “unjust prosecution.” Executive Director Dr. Lauren Beene said, “Prosecutor Watkins has the opportunity to be the first law enforcement official to do the right thing since this incident began…it's an opportunity he should seize immediately.”

In the Nation

Vice President Kamala Harris announced a nationwide tour on abortion rights that will kick off in Wisconsin on January 22, marking what would have been the 51st anniversary of Roe. You can watch Harris’ announcement on Twitter here.

The “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour will focus specifically on the harms caused by bans, and what the White House is doing to protect abortion access. Given Democrats’ plan to hone in abortion rights a central part of their 2024 strategy, it’s anticipated the tour will focus on battleground states.

In recent months, Harris has held more than 50 events in 16 states on abortion rights, talking with activists, local leaders, doctors and legislators. She’s also been doing the rounds on college campuses—continuing to be the White House’s ambassador on the issue. (As we know, Biden’s marked lack of enthusiasm about abortion rights has been a real problem this past year.)

“I will continue to fight for our fundamental freedoms while bringing together those throughout America who agree that every woman should have the right to make decisions about her own body—not the government.” ~Vice President Kamala Harris

Meanwhile, conservatives are quite worked up over The New York Times’ bombshell report on the infighting within the Supreme Court during the lead up to Dobbs. Former Attorney General Jeff Clark, one of the 18 Trump-world people indicted over their attempts to overturn the presidential election, said that the investigation “worsens” the reputation and trust in the Supreme Court “before our very eyes.” (Ah yes, it’s the NYT’s fault!). And the director of the Manhattan Institute, an influential conservative think tank, said the article was “misleading and dishonest.”

In other words, they know it makes them look really, really bad.

Quick hits:

• The federal government has asked a Texas court to reject the petition pushed by Missouri, Idaho and Kansas AGs that would allow the states into the mifepristone lawsuit before the Supreme Court;

• Joan Walsh writes in The Nation that the anti-abortion movement is being driven by contempt for democracy;

• The New York Daily News editorial board writes that the Supreme Court should protect mifepristone access;

• And at The Guardian, Jill Filipovic asks whether men will take a new birth control pill.

Stats & Studies

As the Supreme Court gears up to decide on mifepristone restrictions, a new survey from Data for Progress shows that Americans want abortion medication to be available and accessible by mail. The majority of voters would oppose a Court ruling that restricted mifepristone, with 36% strongly disagreeing.

Data for Progress also asked respondents about Kate Cox’s case, and a whopping (though unsurprising) 85% of voters believe that someone in her situation should be able to obtain abortion care. As I’ve said before: there’s a reason that Republicans are so terrified by Cox.

“I am fed up with extremists trying to turn back the clock and deny women reproductive health care—especially after decades of science that show that medication abortion is safe and effective.” ~ Sen. Elizabeth Warren

There’s a new report out today on how abortion was portrayed on screen this year—from The Morning Show and Grey’s Anatomy to Sex and the City. “Abortion Onscreen,” published by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California, looked at the 49 abortion plot-lines that appeared on television in 2023.

The good news is that researchers found more representation of abortion medication. But, as has been the case in past years, only 23% of the stories portrayed logistical, financial, and legal barriers to abortion access. The demographics of who gets abortion was also largely misrepresentative—onscreen, it was mostly white, young, middle or upper class characters who got abortions.

Another broader issue is just the same old hesitance to really take the issue on—or abortion storylines that end in a miscarriage so that the show doesn’t have to dig deep or grapple with controversy. In an interview with HuffPost, researcher Steph Herold says, “These kinds of tropes and plotlines stigmatize abortion by not even having characters say the word ‘abortion.’”

Suing Over Forced Pregnancy

This is really interesting: There’s a case in front of the Texas Supreme Court that could have an impact on the state’s abortion laws—even though the case itself isn’t about abortion. KERA News has the details, but the short version is that ten years ago, Grissel Velasco paid to have a tubal ligation; the El Paso woman figured out doctors never performed the procedure when she got pregnant the following year.

As you can imagine, Velasco was devastated—she even reported feeling suicidal.

Toluwani Osibamowo reports that the issue in front of the court is whether someone who has been burdened with an unwanted pregnancy can receive damages, and for how much. Or, whether the Court will rule to protect doctors who cause an unwanted pregnancy from liability.

Texas’ abortion law adds a whole other layer to the mix because once someone is pregnant, they don’t have a whole lot of options. It’s also worth noting that the lawyer for the doctor being sued, Diana Faust, is absolutely using ‘pro-life’ language to sway the judges. During oral arguments Faust said, “The court would have to conclude that this benefit, this joy, this blessing that is to be presumed from the birth of a healthy child is not a legal harm for which damages are recoverable.”

I would say it’s shocking, but we know it’s not.