Abortion, Every Day (2.13.24)

Republicans want to redefine 'abortion'

Click to skip ahead: News from Missouri, Montana and Arkansas in Ballot Measure Updates. In Redefining Abortion, I get into the GOP’s efforts to divorce abortion from healthcare. In the States looks at how South Dakota Republicans are trying to redefine ‘abortion’ and more. In Travel Ban Protections, Virginia Dems are pushing a bill to stop anti-choice states from extraditing patients. In the Nation, let’s talk about that Super Bowl ad. More on the retracted anti-abortion study in Stats & Studies. Finally, some good news from Virginia and Maryland in You Love to See It.

---

Ballot Measure Updates

The Missouri abortion rights ballot measure initiative is in full swing: the Springfield News-Leader reports that the campaign has raised more than $4.4 million since launching last month, and the activists behind the proposed amendment say they’re heartened by the response.

That said, pro-choice groups have their work cut out for them: Republicans and anti-abortion activists have been working overtime for months to keep abortion rights off the ballot. And KCUR reports that Missouri Republicans show no signs of slowing: Sen. Rick Brattin says, “The gloves are off, and we're willing to do whatever it takes to protect life, and to ensure that our constitution is protected.”

I think we can guess what that means.

Missouri’s Roman Catholic dioceses are also working against the measure by donating money to the opposing campaign. We saw something similar in Ohio, where the Catholic Church gave nearly a million dollars to defeat Issue 1. (Never mind that most Catholics want legal access to abortion.)

Meanwhile, Republicans in Montana are also trying to stop voters from having a say on abortion rights: This week, Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen asked the state Supreme Court to back up his “legal insufficiency” finding that blocked an abortion rights ballot measure from moving forward.

The Republican AG argues in his filing that the amendment is too confusing for voters—and that it’s actually multiple amendments. This is an argument Ohio anti-abortion groups also made; they said that because Issue 1 would protect abortion, miscarriage treatment, IVF and more, it couldn’t be just one amendment. Here, Knudsen claims that because the measure prevents the state from punishing people based on pregnancy outcomes, the amendment goes beyond abortion into other issues like “prenatal drug use.” (Paging Pregnancy Justice!)

The Republican AG also argues that the proposed amendment “puts abortion above other medical procedures so that it can’t be regulated,” which sounds awfully similar to the lawsuit in Michigan in which anti-abortion groups claim the state’s pro-choice amendment created a “super-right” to abortion. There’s even a disagreement in Montana over how much the amendment could cost the state—which is also what happened in Missouri.

All of which is to say: they are taking cues from each other.

Finally, Little Rock Public Radio has more on the abortion rights ballot measure effort in Arkansas, and Fox 16 reports that a new anti-abortion group has launched a campaign against the state’s proposed amendment. I expect we’ll see the same failing talking points that we saw in Ohio—whether it’s parental rights, claims of ‘abortion up until birth’ or some combination of the two.

Redefining ‘Abortion’

You all know I’m obsessed with how the anti-abortion movement is waging a war on language—and one of their tactics is redefining ‘abortion’ itself. In fact, as The New Republic points out, redefining abortion is a part of the much-discussed “Project 2025”—a conservative playbook on what to do should Trump win the White House.

I wrote about this at length for The New York Times last year, but the short version is that they want to divorce abortion from healthcare. For example, Project 2025 dictates that the CDC and the HHS, stop “promoting abortion as healthcare.” The document also recommends that “abortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child’s life…miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion.”

For months now, I’ve been flagging how Republicans are changing the definition of abortion to exclude miscarriage treatment or ending an ectopic pregnancy. The idea is to make it seem as if abortion is never necessary to save or protect someone’s health or life.

What adds insult to injury is that these lawmakers claim that they’re simply trying to “clarify” the law in order to help doctors and patients. (Republicans never want to admit that their laws are dangerous as-written—bans never need to be ‘changed’, just ‘clarified’.)

If you want to know why I was reminded of the GOP’s war on language and ‘abortion’, check out the first item from state news today:

In the States

South Dakota Republicans have proposed a bill that would have the state health department create an informational video to explain the state’s abortion ban—a move the lawmakers say would help doctors and patients understand when care is legal. Republican Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt says, “The measure merely attempts to clarify the impact of the law on protecting mothers and babies.” (There’s that word ‘clarify’ again!)

The truth, though, is that House Bill 1224 would further enshrine a Republican redefinition of abortion. For example, the bill doesn’t require that this informational video tell doctors and patients when an abortion is legal—but instead would outline “acts that do and do not constitute an abortion.”

That distinction is really important! Because what they’re saying is that abortion is never legal, because health- and life-saving care aren’t really abortions at all. Again, this is a very sneaky way to divorce abortion from healthcare under the auspices of helping doctor. It’s really, really insidious.

Let’s talk a bit more about language. In Kansas this week, Republicans are proposing legislation that would allow women to get child support starting anytime after the date of conception. The Kansas Reflector reports that Senate Bill 425 would also change a state statute to include “unborn children” under the legal definition of child—a very clear move to get fetal personhood on the books.

Remember, Iowa Republicans are trying to do something similar—changing state code to reference an “unborn person.” So are Florida Republicans, who are pushing fetal personhood through a “wrongful death” bill.

Meanwhile, Arizona abortion rights activists are anxiously awaiting a decision from the state Supreme Court on an abortion ban from 1864. Eloisa Lopez, executive director of the Abortion Fund of Arizona, says, “It would be very shocking to see the courts say that that needs to be the current law of the land.” As a reminder: Abortion, Every Day helped to get an anti-abortion activist justice to recuse himself from this case. It’s something I’m super proud of.

Finally, this is why abortion rights research is so important. Remember the study I told you about last week that showed how abortion bans are creating a health crisis among OBGYNs? Well, Wyoming abortion rights activists are using that study in their lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion bans.¹ As they should.

Quick hits:

• Utah Republicans want funding for anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers;

• A Planned Parenthood board member writes about the cruelty of Kentucky’s abortion ban in the Courier-Journal;

• And New Hampshire Deputy House Democratic Leader, Rep. Alexis Simpson, is calling on her colleagues to support a resolution, HCR 11, that would protect access to abortion medication.

Travel Ban Protections

Virginia Senate Democrats passed a bill this week to prevent abortion providers and patients from being extradited over abortion ‘crimes’.

I’m really glad that state legislators are paying attention to just how eager Republicans are to punish women who have abortions. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell cited Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall specifically for why the law is necessary:

“Last year, the Attorney General of Alabama twice specifically said that he was open to bringing women from other states back to Alabama to be prosecuted.”

Indeed, Marshall also made a legal argument that if the state wanted to, it could restrict pregnant women from leaving the state in the same way they restrict sex offenders from traveling without permission. Yes, seriously.

Virginia Republicans, of course, are bummed that they can’t help other states arrest women. State Sen. Mark Peake told ABC 8 News that he voted against the bill because it could allow women to lie about being in Virginia after actually having had an abortion in an anti-choice state. They can’t help but tell on themselves again and again: of course they think women would lie, and of course they want them punished.

In more travel ban news: make sure to check out this really important piece from The Texas Tribune reminding us just how badly Republicans want to expand their legal extremism out of their own states. The Tribune looks at the counties passing travel bans in Texas, how Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton has demanded the medical records from at least two out-of-state clinics providing minors with gender-affirming care, and the way that anti-abortion activist lawyer Jonathan Mitchell has been targeting Texas abortion funds to get the records of clients who they’ve helped get abortions out-of-state.

Most importantly, the reporters point out that regardless of what happens in the Court, “these bans don’t have to be enforced to incite fear among health care providers or abortion seekers and those helping them cross state lines.” Make sure to read the whole thing.

In the Nation

If you watched the Super Bowl this weekend, you may have caught the ad featuring images of various people in ‘controversial’ scenarios washing each other’s feet—including an anti-abortion protester washing the feet of a presumably pregnant woman heading to an abortion clinic. The ad ends with the lines: “Jesus didn’t teach hate. He washed feet. He gets us. All of us.”

There’s a few things that make this ad particularly rich. To start, there’s something incredibly grating about the image of an anti-abortion protester washing a woman’s feet—as if these aren’t the people out there calling patients sluts and murderers every day of the week. 

The ad was also funded by a family who bankrolls the Alliance Defending Freedom—the group responsible for Roe’s demise and the mifepristone lawsuit heading to the Supreme Court. The “He Gets Us” campaign had two ads during Sunday’s game estimated to cost $17.5 million. I don’t know what Jesus would do, but I have to imagine he’d put that money to better use.

Bloomberg Law has a piece today about how the mifepristone case headed to the Supreme Court is “one of the clearest examples of how the justices can manage procedural questions to get at an issue and obtain desired results, or leave courts out of it altogether.” If you’re into legal nitty gritty, it’s worth a read.

Quick hits:

• An appeals court upheld the life sentence of Eric Rudolph, who bombed the Olympic games, several abortion clinics, and a lesbian bar;

• The Independent on Republicans’ attacks on contraception;

• Mother Jones on the study showing that voters don’t blame Trump for the end of Roe;

• And USA Today on conservative strategy of targeting small towns with anti-abortion ordinances.

Stats & Studies

Man oh man, conservatives are still big mad over the retraction of three major anti-abortion studies²—two of which are being used in the mifepristone case headed before the Supreme Court. Incredibly, they’re blaming “wokeness” and “cancel culture” for the retractions. I know, I know: I shouldn’t be surprised.

The editorial board of the National Catholic Register, for example, calls it “cancel culture science.” They write that it’s a sign of “obvious bias in favor of the abortion lobby’s perspectives,” seemingly not understanding that perspectives are different from science and facts. (Speaking of perspectives, the editorial board also calls abortion pills “evil medications”—which doesn’t exactly help their case that they’re not biased.)

Conservative media outlets like National Review, the Daily Wire and The Washington Examiner all make similar claims. What’s more, the Charlotte Lozier Institute—the anti-abortion extremist group affiliated with the study’s authors—has created a whole website dedicated to the grand injustice of being held to scientific and medical standards. AssaultOnScience.org has a whole timeline of events with Sage Publishing, prompts to read the “censored paper,” and—of course—a place to donate.

As I’ve written previously, we don’t really know what the retraction will mean for the mifepristone case headed to SCOTUS. (Law professor Mary Ziegler tells ABC News she doesn’t think it will have much impact.) For more on this story, the terrific podcast Boom Lawyered! talks about the retraction in their latest episode.

You Love to See It

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore announced a $15.6 million investment in abortion rights for the state: $5 million to increase Medicaid provider reimbursement for abortion care, and a $10.6 million grant from the state health department for an abortion training program at the University of Maryland.

The funding will help increase the number of healthcare providers who can perform abortions—an especially important investment given how overwhelmed pro-choice states are with out-of-state patients.

I couldn’t love this more: Virginia Democrats put their Republican colleagues in the hot seat this week, forcing them to go on the record on abortion rights. When Republican Delegate Tim Griffin introduced a bill to prohibit the use of public funds for abortion care—even in cases of rape, incest and life-threatening pregnancy—he expected it to be quickly killed. After all, Democrats have a majority.

Instead, Democratic leaders pushed the bill forward—a move to force Republicans to show their true colors. From University of Mary Washington Professor Stephen Farnsworth:

“It puts Republicans in a tough spot. They either have to vote for this extreme position and then face whatever backlash might exist, or not vote for it and run the risk of losing a primary to someone who says they’re not conservative enough.”

What made this especially brutal for Republicans is that Democrats refused to let them water down the bill. Del. Candi Mundon King said, “If the patron didn’t know what he was doing, maybe he should’ve stayed out of women’s business.” Ha!

In the end, Republicans were forced to vote on bill as it was written, the bill was rejected nearly-unanimously.

Finally, our last bit of good news comes from New York City, where Mayor Eric Adams’ administration announced a new “Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Bill of Rights” meant to give people all the information they need about their right to abortion and other reproductive healthcare in the city.

The document, which will be sent to healthcare providers and pro-choice groups, makes clear that patients don’t need parental consent to obtain an abortion, and that most insurance plans, including Medicaid, cover abortion care.

1

Yes, Wyoming has two bans: one is a run-of-the mill trigger ban, the other is a ban specifically abortion medication.

Correction: In the “Week in Abortion,” I wrote that Sage Publications hired experts to review the anti-abortion studies that ended up being retracted. That’s incorrect: the experts were not paid for their time, they volunteered it.

2.