Abortion, Every Day (1.10.24)

Idaho doc is telling pregnant patients to buy life insurance

Click to skip ahead in the newsletter: In Post-Dobbs Deaths, I ask why we’re not hearing more about the death of a young Texas woman. Ballot Measure Updates looks at the latest campaign against the pro-choice ballot measure effort in Arizona. In Attacks on Democracy, the Republican candidate for Ohio Supreme Court has a history of anti-abortion activism. In the States, news out of Idaho, Kentucky and New Hampshire. Language Watch details the reemergence of a very odd (but telling) term. Keep An Eye On a parental rights abortion argument. In 2024, a reminder about tonight’s debate (ugh) and a surprising comment from Ron DeSantis. And Care Denied looks at the GOP’s attempts to deny women life-saving abortions.

---

Post-Dobbs Deaths

I’m flabbergasted that we haven’t heard more about Yeniifer Alvarez-Estrada Glick—the young woman killed by Texas’ abortion ban. Since The New Yorker published their investigation into Yeni’s death, there’s been little coverage from other publications or media outlets, and I’m only seeing a smattering of social media chatter about her life and death.

This isn’t just infuriating—it’s terrifying. Are Americans really so jaded, that the first reported post-Dobbs death is going ignored? Are the anti-abortion movement’s hopes that no one cares about the deaths of marginalized women right?

I still think that part of the issue is how The New Yorker chose to frame the article (which I wrote about here). By asking in the headline whether Yeni’s death was caused by Texas’ ban—even as the reporting showed that it obviously was—editors took the wind out of their own sails.

The decision wasn’t just editorially misguided, but ethically problematic: We all have a responsibility to paint a clear picture of the consequences of these bans, especially with the anti-abortion movement depending on our equivocation or tentativeness. (Indeed, leading anti-choice groups are already claiming Yeni’s death had nothing to do with Texas’ ban.)

But the issue isn’t the headline alone—the media outlets that ran story after story about Kate Cox (as they should have) are suddenly nowhere to be found. It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that racism is playing a role here. Maybe the seeming lack of interest in Yeni’s story is because she wasn’t explicitly ‘denied’ an abortion, but never offered one. Or because Yeni had a host of previous medical issues. But that complexity is very much the point: an abortion ban scared doctors out of recommending or even mentioning abortion to a woman whose life was endangered by her pregnancy!

I’m not going to lie—this scares me. Post-Dobbs deaths are going to be complicated, and the stories will be nuanced because pregnancy and healthcare are complicated and nuanced. If this is how mainstream media is going to respond to abortion bans killing women, we have a big problem.

Ballot Measure Updates

A new campaign launched this week in opposition to the pro-choice ballot measure effort in Arizona, and it’s exactly what you would expect. The “It Goes Too Far” campaign repeats all the lies we saw in Ohio—like fear-mongering over parental consent and claims that the amendment puts women’s health in danger. And as was the case in Ohio, even though the Arizona ballot measure has a ‘viability’ standard, the campaign says that the amendment would allow for “painful, late term abortion.”

“It Goes Too Far” also goes to great pains to trick voters about the language of the Arizona ballot measure. When you click “see the language” on the campaign website, it doesn’t take you to the language of the actual amendment—but a summary of false anti-abortion claims about the measure. (Sound familiar?) There’s another prompt to “read the language” that takes website users to even more false claims. Finally, there’s a link to a “legal summary” that—you guessed it!—offers more lies about the amendment.

There is nowhere on the website that directs people to the actual ballot measure.

One more thing about “It Goes Too Far” that’s worth keeping an eye on: The group claims that the proposed amendment “eliminates the requirement that girls and women see a qualified medical doctor to get an abortion.” How did they come to that? It’s because the measure refers to “health care professionals” and not doctors, specifically. It’s very similar to the way that Ohio anti-abortion activists claimed that the word ‘individual’ in Issue 1 meant that minors would be able to have abortion.

If all the lies are getting you down and you want to see something truly delightful, check out the audience demographic at the campaign launch event. I laughed out loud.

Democrats in Maine announced legislation today that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. The amendment to “Protect Personal Reproductive Autonomy” would need two-thirds support in each chamber to move forward, and the state Judiciary Committee is going to hold a public hearing later this month on the proposed amendment.

Axios has more on the abortion rights ballot measure effort in Arkansas, where the Republican Attorney General has rejected the language of the proposed amendment twice. Arkansans for Limited Government submitted the third version of the measure to AG Tim Griffin on Monday. As I’ve written previously, Griffin doesn’t actually care about the language—he’s just trying to stall the amendment for as long as possible.

Attacks on Democracy

An investigation from Ohio Capital Journal found that the Republican candidate for Ohio’s Supreme Court has a history of anti-abortion activism, and has boasted about her relationship with some of the state’s top anti-choice groups. I don’t think I need to tell you why this is so dangerous, but just in case, here’s a refresher:

Since Ohio voters passed Issue 1, which enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution, Republicans have been trying to stop it from going into effect. Some legislators threatened to strip the judiciary of its power to enforce the amendment; others suggested a ‘compromise’ 15-week ban. Anti-abortion activists even floated redefining ‘abortion’ entirely as a way to render Issue 1 impotent.

At the end of the day, though, the power to enforce Issue 1 is with the courts—right now, each anti-abortion law has to be individually repealed. That’s what makes Ohio Supreme Court candidate Meghan Shanahan so dangerous: the Republican judge could be given the power to override the will of voters. And this OCJ investigation makes clear exactly how she feels about the issue.

The publication found that Shanahan bragged on Twitter about being endorsed by Cincinnati Right to Life’s Evening for Life—one of organizations that led the effort against Issue 1! Shanahan also tweeted that she was “proud” to attend the organizations “Evening for Life” fundraiser.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they came across even more background, but the point is that Shanahan has a clear anti-abortion agenda. Matt Keyes, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, told the OCJ, “It’s clear that abortion rights are once again on the ballot in 2024, and Judge Shanahan has already shown her true colors: rubbing elbows with anti-abortion activists and touting endorsements from the very groups who tried to take away abortion rights last fall.”

State Supreme Court elections have become very much about abortion since Roe was overturned—as we saw in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where spending closed in on $20 million. So I’ll be keeping a close eye on this race.

In the States

In response to the news that Idaho Republicans want to replace the word ‘fetus’ in all state law with the term ‘preborn child’, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates says that the move could impact all kinds of reproductive health care—including birth control. The group said that the legislation, introduced by Rep. Julianne Young, “could create a pathway for further restricting reproductive rights of Idahoans including in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, some forms of birth control, and emergency contraception.”

Rep. Young insists that the bill wouldn’t grant fetuses the same rights as people, but let’s be real. The entire point of legislation like this to enshrine fetal personhood. And as Planned Parenthood director for Idaho Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman said, “For the health and safety of all people in our state, we cannot afford to waste time changing medical language to politically and emotionally charged terminology.”

I told you yesterday about “Hadley’s Law,” a Kentucky bill that would create exceptions in the state’s abortion ban for sexual violence victims and those with nonviable pregnancies. The bill is named for Hadley Duvall, the young woman who talked about being raped a child in a campaign ad for Gov. Andy Beshear. Duvall, a college senior, was at the Kentucky state house yesterday, lobbying for the legislation:

“There are women and girls who went through the same trauma that I went through. Those women and girls need their choices. This bill will provide those.” 

Kentucky Republicans don’t seem to have gotten the memo that they’re losing big time on abortion rights. (I’m not just talking about Gov. Beshear’s re-election: Kentucky voters decisively rejected a 2022 ballot measure that stated there was no constitutional right to abortion.) When asked about the bill, Republican House Speaker, Rep. David Osborne, said, “I’m not sure where we’re going to end up on it ultimately.” And the Courier Journal reports that Senate President Robert Stivers said the issue was “really tough.”

Efforts to add exceptions to the state’s total ban—even by Republicans—have failed thus far, so I’m curious to see where this lands.

PBS NewsHour has a short segment on Brittany Watts’ case in Ohio. They spoke to law professor Mary Ziegler and got into the increasing criminalization of miscarriages:

Finally, a poll from The Boston Globe found that New Hampshire voters are thinking a lot about abortion. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said their opposition to the end of Roe would directly impact how they vote, calling the issue “the main” or “among” the main factor in their decision-making. David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, says, “At least in New Hampshire, it’s a winner—and it’s a winner with males and females.” (Voters in New Hampshire are also just two weeks away from casting a vote in the presidential primary.)

Quick hits:

• The New York Times has more on abortion rights efforts in New Jersey, including one that failed to get abortion covered for low-income women;

• Ballotpedia has a rundown on what could happen in with Florida’s abortion rights amendment;

• Washington Republicans are targeting abortion providers and trans kids;

• And KFF Health News on how California is offering a life-line to medical residents looking for abortion training.

Language Watch

One of the things I’ve covered here quite a bit is the way that Republicans are trying to redefine certain kinds of contraception as ‘abortifacients’. (They claim that IUDs and emergency contraception prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, and therefore end pregnancy.)

Back in September, I flagged that an anti-abortion group in Oregon were seeking an exemption from the state law that requires insurance plans provide contraception coverage. In their suit, the argued that IUDs and the morning-after-pill were ‘abortifacient contraceptives’. The term struck me really odd, but something to watch out for.

Lo and behold, in a piece at the hyper-conservative Daily Caller about birth control and Gen Z, the author says that polling shows “there is strong support for non-abortifacient contraceptives.” There’s that term again!

It would be interesting enough for the term to show up in a conservative media outlet, but there’s more: the author of the piece is the communications assistant at the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF)—perhaps the country’s most powerful conservative women’s group!

I’ve been writing about IWF for years (oh the stories I could tell), and in all that time, they’ve worked very hard to remain ‘neutral’ on birth control. They know that being anti-contraception is incredibly unpopular, so they stay away from saying anything that could be labeled too extreme on the issue. So this is a really interesting turn of events.

Is IWF admitting that they think IUDs and the morning after pill aren’t birth control at all?

Keep An Eye On

Last week, I wrote about a Tennessee Republican pushing legislation that would allow abortions in cases of nonviable pregnancies and pregnancies that would “cause women to be sterile.” I took issue with Sen. Richard Briggs’ focus on women’s fertility: women’s lives are being endangered, yet somehow it was our ability to have children that really sparked this GOP legislator into action.

But I read something else today about Briggs’ bill that caught my eye—specifically, the way he framed the legislation as a parents’ rights issue. Check out what Briggs told the Nashville Scene about pregnancies with fatal fetal anomalies:

“If you’re carrying a child, you’re a parent. You’re the parent of an unborn child. Why shouldn't that be a parent’s decision and not the government's decision? Republicans, of course, talk a lot about parents that know what’s best for their children.”

I hate to say it, but it is the kind of take that could go somewhere. (It also reminds me of a legal argument sent to me by Abortion, Every Day readers about coverture.)

2024

There’s a Republican presidential debate tonight, god help us. I’ll have an open thread available for paid subscribers, so if you need somewhere to commiserate, hop on over! And if you haven’t upgraded your subscription yet, it’s a good time to make the jump:

Susan Rinkunas at Jezebel writes that the debate moderators should ask the remaining presidential hopefuls about the Comstock Act, and I couldn’t agree more. Like I wrote yesterday, it’s coming up more and more in state legislation—and it’s clearly what anti-abortion activists are planning to push for in a possible Trump presidency.

Finally, Ron DeSantis said this week that birth control should be over-the-counter and shouldn’t require a prescription—which is…interesting. Two things: Reporters should really ask which birth control he means, given that so many conservatives believe that certain contraceptives are ‘abortifacients’. I also wonder if this isn’t an attempt to appear more moderate on reproductive rights in the face of so much terrible polling on the 6-week ban DeSantis signed in Florida.

Care Denied

I’m still reeling over the fact that women’s right to life-saving emergency care is being seriously debated in the courts right now—with one suit headed to the Supreme Court. I still can’t believe that this is where we are. But at least I’m not alone in my shock and horror. Moira Donegan at The Guardian has a piece that gets to the root of it all:

“The ruling means that Texas, and other anti-abortion states, have been endowed with a morbid power over the lives and health of pregnant women. They can force them to endure ruptures of the uterus, organ prolapse, massive blood loss and sepsis. They can force them to lose their fertility. And even in cases where—through luck and grace—none of this comes to pass, they can force these women to wait, in fear and humiliation, for what fate has in store for them.”

It’s the humiliation I’ve been thinking and writing about most. Donegan calls it “a sadistic theater of misogynist domination,” with Republican states making clear again and again how little they value women’s lives.

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern at Slate also wrote this week about the EMTALA cases in a must-read piece:

“Every unborn fetus is the priority over the pregnant person carrying it and must be carried to term at all costs. So goes the moral calculus of the death-panel judges who now determine how to weigh the competing interests between real, existing human life and a state’s dogmatic fixation with a fetus that, by definition, must be seraphically innocent.”

Whew. Finally, Salon spoke to a doctor who provides OB care in Idaho about the battles over emergency abortions. (Idaho is one of the states fighting for the right to deny women life-saving abortions.) Dr. Caitlin Gustafson says she has advised patients who are pregnant or considering getting pregnant to check if their insurance provider covers flight transport like Life Flight, and to get “supplemental life insurance.”

“We hope they never need it, but our ability to provide on-the-spot care has deteriorated now that Idaho legislators have made this important medical decision for you,” Dr. Gustafson said.

Oh, and if you needed any more reminders that anti-abortion activists and groups don’t give a shit about women’s lives, consider that Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, told STAT News this week that the stories of women going septic and nearly dying because of abortion bans are “partly being blown out of proportion.” Charming.