Antis Want to Extradite Providers

5.20.24

Click to skip ahead: In Anti-Abortion Strategy, more chatter from the anti-abortion movement on prosecuting providers from shield states. In the States, news from Virginia, Louisiana, Ohio, Texas and more. Great news from Colorado, Florida and Arizona in Ballot Measure Updates. In Language Watch, anti-abortion rhetoric from Republicans and the media. And in 2024 news, the Democrats are betting on ballot measure turnout.

---

Anti-Abortion Strategy: Extraditing Providers

Anti-abortion lawmakers and activists are pissed off: #WeCount numbers released last week show that 8,000 people a month in anti-choice states are getting abortion medication from providers in shield states, which means their bans aren’t stopping all women from getting the abortions they want and need. And with increased chatter on extraditing and punishing abortion providers from pro-choice states, it’s just a matter of time before we see a case brought forward.

Indeed, earlier this month, Erin Hawley with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told NBC News, “States have a duty to protect their most vulnerable citizens and their families from harm.”

Remember, ADF is the most powerful conservative legal organization attacking abortion right now—they’re the group that brought the case that overturned Roe. They’re also the lawyers behind the attempts to restrict mifepristone and allow states to deny women emergency abortions. So if this is on their radar, it’s definitely something to worry about.

The extremist anti-abortion group Live Action has also been talking a lot more about shield laws and how providers are “flouting” the law. This is the group behind the ‘Baby Olivia’ laws that force public schools to show anti-abortion videos in science class. They’re not the powerhouse ADF is, but it’s still worrying.

In the States

It’s been less than two weeks since Abortion, Every Day broke the news about a Republican bill that would establish a government-run website that collects data on pregnant women. Never one to be outdone, Florida is hot on the Senate GOP’s heels. Gov. Ron DeSantis has a signed a bill that puts nearly half a million dollars towards the creation of a state website that will supposedly provide resources and information on pregnancy and parenting, including adoption services.

The kicker? It won’t actually be run by the state health department, but a third party contractor. I am willing to bet all the money in my bank account that it will be a crisis pregnancy center network like Heartbeat International or CareNet.

The Louisiana House is debating a bill today that would classify abortion medication as a controlled substance. As I wrote last week, this isn’t just a move to make the pills more difficult for people to obtain, but is another effort to infringe on patient privacy: controlled substances and the patients who use them are trackable in a state database.

What’s especially infuriating is that while anti-abortion groups are attacking women’s rights and medical privacy, they’re claiming that the bill is simply about the protection of women and girls. Last week, Sarah Zagorski of Louisiana Right to life told public radio stationWWNO, “We've had pregnancy centers email us with many stories of minors getting access to this medication.” And today Zagorski told The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate , “the pills are available without proof of identity and in bulk, opening the door for sex traffickers or predators of any kind to abuse them, harming women and girls in Louisiana.”

We know that it’s not going to be ‘traffickers’ who are harmed by this law, and it won’t be predators who will be arrested. It will be women from the most marginalized communities who are denied the medication and punished if they manage to obtain it. And as I’ve been banging on about for months—these laws are meant to target abortion funds.

In the end, though, everyone in Louisiana will be in danger. From reproductive rights lawyer Ellie Schilling:

“Who’s going to get criminalized is your suburban mom who helps her daughter find the pills online, because they're desperate and they can't find them any other way and don't have the money to travel. Or your college roommate…who knows where to find the medications that her roommate needs.”

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin has vetoed legislation that would have established a right to contraception and required health insurance companies to cover birth control. Apparently that was just too much for Youngkin, who claimed in a statement that the legislation didn’t include “adequate conscience clause protections for providers and also undermines the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning their children’s upbringing and care.”

In plain English? Anti-abortion groups falsely claim that some types of birth control are actually abortions, so employers shouldn’t have to cover them. This isn’t just a tactic to block access to contraception, but to redefine certain kinds of birth control as abortifacients. If you need a reminder on this strategy, check out the piece below:

The GOP’s Plan to Ban Birth Control (Part I)

Please remember, this is how they target birth control—not with a sweeping bill that says ‘contraception is illegal,’ but with a slow chipping away process.

It’s been over six months since Ohio voters overwhelmingly passed Issue 1, the ballot measure that enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution. But activists have had to challenge every anti-abortion law in court—including the state’s ban—in order to repeal the restrictions.

A decision on that 6-week ban is coming soon, with a county judge expected to rule on whether or not the ban violates the new amendment. The answer, of course, is that it does. Even Ohio’s Republican Attorney General Dave Yost admitted as much in a court filing last month. (He didn’t have much of a choice; while lobbying against Issue 1 before the election, Yost warned voters that the amendment would automatically repeal the state’s ban.)

That hasn’t stopped Yost—best known for calling the story of a 10-year-old rape victim a likely “fabrication”—from arguing that Issue 1 doesn’t repeal other kinds of restrictions, like a 24-hour waiting period. Abortion rights groups are challenging that waiting period, along with the ban on telehealth for abortion medication and various TRAP laws.

Activists aren’t, however, challenging the state’s parental consent law. I wish they would, but I understand the political calculation: If abortion rights groups fight to repeal Ohio’s parental consent law, it gives much-needed ammunition to Republicans and anti-choice organizations attacking abortion rights measures in other states.

Meanwhile, a new study shows that unnecessary restrictions like waiting periods are harmful to Ohio patients. Researchers found that “these laws make it harder for patients to experience timely, safe and routine health care and result in distressing challenges for abortion seekers.”

Quick hits:

• Two new Planned Parenthood CEOs in Oregon talk about how they’re working to meet increased out-of-state patient load;

• There were dueling abortion rallies in Raleigh, North Carolina this weekend;

• And Bloomberg Law on state Supreme Court races where abortion is playing a major role.

Ballot Measure Updates

Love this: New polling shows tremendous support for abortion rights ballot measures in Arizona and Florida. The CBS News/YouGov poll found 65% of voters in Arizona want to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, as do 60% of voters in Florida. (Amendments require 60% of the vote in Florida as opposed to a simple majority.)

I don’t know how many times we have to say it: America supports abortion.

Thanks to the activists in Colorado, abortion rights is officially on the ballot this November! Colorado is one of the most pro-choice states in the country; this measure would offer an extra layer of protection and undo the state’s ban on government funding for abortion. Unlike other ballot measures on abortion, Initiative 89 in Colorado doesn’t include restrictions. This is the complete language of the amendment that would be added to the state constitution:

“The right to abortion is hereby recognized. Government shall not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise of that right, including prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortion.”

Huge congratulations to all of the amazing folks at Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom, the coalition of groups that worked so hard to make this happen.

Just a quick aside: this headline from UPI— “Colorado ballot initiative seeks right to taxpayer-funded abortions”—irritated me. While it’s technically correct, they could have just easily written “Colorado ballot initiative seeks to repeal ban on funding for low income women.” It’s just starting to feel like I’m seeing anti-abortion framing and rhetoric everywhere.

Finally, not so great news out of Minnesota, where the Equal Rights Amendment—which would have protected abortion rights—failed to advance. It’s definitely disappointing, but at least Minnesota already has strong abortion rights protections in place. Here’s hoping they try again.

“It’s gonna take work, it’s gonna be hard. But Roe should not be our ceiling, it should be our floor.” - Texas OBGYN Anitra Beasley

Language Watch

I’ve got a twofer for you today on anti-abortion rhetoric. U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance was on Face the Nation this weekend, and the language that both he and CBS News interviewer Margaret Brennan used spoke volumes.

When Brennan asked Vance about his support for a federal abortion ban—an issue Republicans are desperate not to talk about—she avoided using the word ‘ban’:

“You said back in 2022, that a proposal to limit abortion access after 15 weeks of pregnancy was something you would support and some minimal national standard. What is the minimum national standard that you want the federal government to have on abortion?”

JUST CALL IT A BAN. It’s so frustrating to see reporters go out of their way not to use the correct term for abortion policy just to appease Republicans. Since Roe was overturned, anti-abortion groups have been pressuring journalists and media outlets to stop using ‘ban,’ claiming that it indicates pro-choice bias. But remember, under their false definition of the word, there are no abortion bans in the United States at all! It’s absurd that anyone is playing along.

Meanwhile, Vance’s response to Brennan was also telling. Check out the way he danced around his support for a national ban:

“I think it's totally reasonable to say that late term abortions should not happen with reasonable exceptions. But I think Trump's approach...is trying to settle a very tough issue and actually empower the American people to decide it for themselves.”

So much going on in just a few sentences! First, Vance characterizes a 15-week ban that would force women to carry nonviable pregnancies to term as a restriction on “late” abortions that has “reasonable” exceptions. This is something I’ve been tracking for a while—not just the focus on exceptions, which we know are bullshit, but the way Republicans are trying to define ‘late’ abortion as anything after the first trimester.

The kicker, of course, is the idea that Trump wants to “empower” Americans “to decide for themselves.” This is akin to another language trend I’ve been following: “the will of the people.” Republicans want to make it seem as if their incredibly unpopular abortion bans are actually something that voters want.

2024

We’re not quite done with conservative abortion messaging yet! U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio was on Meet the Press this weekend, and like Vance he was trying to run from the fact that abortion bans are being passed against voters’ wishes.

“Other people have different views, but in our representative democracy, people will have to answer to voters in the state of Florida who voted for that and voters will now get to take that into account in this election and any future election.”

This is something I’ve flagged before: Because Republicans are terrified of ballot measures, they’re claiming that voters already have a say on abortion rights via their elected officials.

Rubio also repeated another anti-abortion talking point: that Republicans won’t pass a national abortion ban because they don’t have the votes. When asked if Trump would sign a national ban, Rubio responded, “Well, he won’t sign one because there’s no way we can pass it.” He continued, “That’s a statement of fact: He will never get a chance to sign that law because right now we don’t have the votes to pass.”

I wish that this kind of messaging wasn’t working, but I’ve seen this repeated so many times in comment sections and on social media—particularly from Republican women who don’t want to admit that their vote will support an abortion ban. That’s why it’s vital that we’re making clear that the GOP doesn’t need a formal national ban to stop abortion in every state: all they need is the presidency to enforce the Comstock Act and reverse FDA approval of abortion medication.

Democrats are pinning a lot of November hope on turnout for pro-choice ballot measures. They know that abortion rights amendments have won every time they’ve been on the ballot since Roe was overturned, and that pro-choice organizers have been doing an absolutely incredible job getting people to the polls. The idea is that the folks who show up to vote for abortion will stick around to support Biden and other down-ticket Democrats while they’re there.

Suzan DelBene, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said at a press event on Friday that they’re especially focused on turnout among young voters, who are a “top priority.” DelBene also said that they expect abortion rights to bring out voters even in states that aren’t considering a pro-choice ballot measure:

“Folks support women’s reproductive rights across the country. And that’s going to be a huge issue. And for some people, it is the issue.”

Meanwhile, Ben Carson wants Donald Trump to know that he’d never, ever disagree with him on abortion. After some headlines about a “split” between the potential VP pick and Trump on the issue, Carson told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “I agree completely with his ideal of shifting it to the states…because the discussions can take place between the legislators and the people.”

---

CORRECTION (5.17.24): On Friday, I reported that South Dakota’s pro-choice amendment would allow for broad restrictions on abortion in the second trimester—that was wrong. The measure would only allow restrictions after 12 weeks “that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.” Apologies for the error.