Anti-Abortion Activists Say Life-Saving Abortions Are 'Elective'

11.12.24

Click to skip ahead: In Death by Design, anti-abortion activists are now calling life-saving abortions ‘elective.’ In the States, women are suing over the bans in Kentucky and Idaho. In the Nation, American women are buying abortion medication at record rates. In Post-Election Analysis, everyone is obsessed with figuring out why some voters supported abortion and Trump. In Ballot Measure Updates, news from Missouri and Florida. Finally, in Stats & Studies, there’s a reduction in clinics offering abortion care later in pregnancy.

---

Death by Design

This is going to be a longer section than usual, so buckle up. But it’s an important one: Anti-abortion activists have started to call life-saving abortions ‘elective.’ Seriously.

Let’s back up a minute for context: You all know that if there’s one thing I want people to take from this newsletter, it’s the knowledge that all of this suffering and death was planned for. Anti-abortion activists and lawmakers knew that overturning Roe would kill women, and they spent years strategizing on how they could shirk blame.

One of the tactics I noticed early on was conservatives blaming doctors for ‘misunderstanding’ the law, and blaming pro-choicers for supposedly scaring said doctors out of providing care. It’s a strategy that’s gained steam as more and more post-Roe horror stories have come out—especially the stories about women’s deaths. In response to ProPublica’s reports on multiple women killed by abortion bans, for example, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America put out a full-blown ad campaign claiming it was Democrats’ ‘misinformation’ about abortion bans that killed the women.

But as I’ve pointed out before, their messaging contains a major tell: Anti-abortion groups will never say that abortions are legal—or even necessary—to save a person’s life. Instead they’ll say that doctors were legally allowed to provide ‘care’ or to ‘intervene’ to save a patient’s life. (Truly, once you know about this language trick, you’ll never be able to unsee it.)

That’s because anti-abortion groups actually want doctors to force women into vaginal labor or c-sections rather than safer, less painful and less traumatic abortion procedures—even when a fetus isn’t viable. Why in the world would they want that? As I’ve written before, it’s so they can claim that abortion is never necessary to save a patient’s life. If they can make doctors give dying women c-sections instead of abortions, they can say, see, she didn’t need an abortion at all! Never mind that they’re torturing women in service of a political talking point.

That’s why I write so often about language; their messaging causes real life, tangible harm. And it’s getting even more dangerous. In response to the deaths of Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain in Texas, anti-abortion extremists didn’t just repeat the lie about abortions never being necessary—they redefined those life-saving abortion as ‘elective.’ Here’s the Catholic Vote quoting Dr. John Bruchalski—an extremist anti-abortion doctor who frequently testifies in favor of abortion bans an leads a campaign to force women to carry doomed pregnancies to term:

“A direct or ‘elective’ abortion, on the other hand, Dr. Bruchalski emphasized, is never necessary. ‘There are no advantages for a mother to end her pregnancy by an elective abortion, even in the most life-threatening circumstances.’”

Bruchalski goes on to call concerns over women’s lives a “false flag operation.” This is also a man who said in a 2022 interview that providing abortions in cases of doomed pregnancies would be “robbing our patients of an opportunity for courage, or underestimating their capacity to face suffering.”

Lest you think this is just one maniac, the publication goes on to quote Texas Alliance for Life and another anti-abortion OBGYN who claim that the only appropriate care for a dying pregnant woman is the induction of labor or a c-section. Anything else is ‘elective’ (ie, selfish) care.

There’s no overstating how dangerous this rhetoric is, especially right now. We’re in a a moment when Republican leaders are fighting for the right to deny women life-saving abortions in hospital emergency rooms and doctors are denying women care. Characterizing life-saving abortions as ‘elective’ will be the nail in our coffins—literally.

Read my column on the death of Josseli Barnica below:

How Many of Us Have to Die?

In the States

Here’s something interesting: A pregnant Kentucky woman is suing to have an abortion, arguing that the state ban violates her right to privacy and self-determination under Kentucky’s constitution. The anonymous plaintiff, called Mary Poe, is represented by the ACLU and the ACLU of Kentucky—groups that brought a similar challenge against the state’s ban last year.

Poe, who is is seven weeks pregnant, says, “This is my personal decision, a decision I believe should be mine alone, not one made by anyone else.”

I’ll keep you updated as the case moves forward.

Meanwhile, four Idaho women are suing the state over its abortion ban after being denied care. The women are represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the group that brought a similar case forward in Texas.

The women who sued Texas all had their health and lives endangered by the state’s ban; in this case, the four Idaho women had to leave the state to end nonviable pregnancies. The suit is asking the court to clarify the ban’s medical exceptions, and to make clear that doctors can provide care when:

1. There’s a pregnancy complication or medical condition that poses a risk of infection, bleeding or otherwise makes it unsafe for the patient to continue a pregnancy;

2. A pregnant person has a medical condition that’s made worse by pregnancy and can’t be effectively treated during pregnancy, or requires recurrent invasive intervention;

3. The fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy and sustain life after birth. 

What I like about this case—other than the fact that it’s fighting on behalf of women who were harmed—is that even if they lose, they’re forcing Republicans and the courts to say out loud that no, they won’t allow care in these obviously medically necessary scenarios. Let’s force these assholes to show exactly who they are.

I’m also glad that Idaho’s draconian ban—again, which forces women to carry doomed pregnancies to term—will come under national scrutiny. If you’re a regular reader you know that Abortion, Every Day has been tracking the anti-abortion movement’s quiet campaign to force women to carry nonviable pregnancies; it’s one of the cruelest things I’ve covered. (And that’s saying a lot!)

You can read background about the case here at CRR, and watch one of the plaintiffs share her story in this PBS News Hour segment:

Quick hits:

• Oklahoma saw the largest decline in abortions among states with bans, a new report says;

• Wisconsin Public Radio on the case in front of the state Supreme Court that could determine abortion rights in the state;

• And some Florida Republicans claim that they’re not going to introduce any new legislation on abortion (but who really believes that?).

In the Nation

In the least surprising news ever, American women are ordering abortion medication in record numbers. In fact, Aid Access reports that they got so many requests for the pills that their website briefly crashed. I’m actually glad to hear this, and hope the trend keeps up. If you’ve been reading over the last few days, you know that I think one of the best things we can do right now to protect ourselves and each other is order advance provision abortion medication to ensure that we have the pills on hand.

Women are also stocking up on emergency contraception, and health care providers say they saw an overnight surge in women asking for long-term contraception. Planned Parenthood reported that the day after the election, vasectomy appointments increased by 1200% and IUD appointments increased by more than 760%. I’m seeing the same thing online anecdotally. On TikTok, for example, a healthcare worker shared that they’ve done so many IUD insertions since the election that her office has run out of IUD kits.

Brittany Fonteno, president of the National Abortion Federation, told The Washington Post, “People understand that the threat is very real and the threat is dire to abortion access under a Trump administration.” And Rebecca Gomperts of Aid Access noted that a lot of the requests for advanced provision abortion medication her group received were those from pro-choice states. “People don’t trust anymore that the laws in the states will protect them,” she said.

And they shouldn’t! Especially given what we know about the Comstock Act, and how that could impact our ability to get abortion medication shipped to us no matter what state we live in.

Trusted sources for abortion medication: Aid Access, Plan C Pills, Abortion Finder, I Need An A.

All that said, I’m just going to reiterate something I flagged yesterday: While people aren’t really being arrested right now for having the pills mailed to them, we know that some women have been criminalized for using the medication. That’s why it’s so important that people know about (and support!) If/When/How’s free Repro Helpline: 844-868-2812

For a deep dive on abortion criminalization, consider listening to the below episode of the terrific podcast series, “The A Files.”

Post-Election Analysis

Political journalists and pundits are obsessed with figuring out why so many voters—women, in particular—split their votes: Quite a lot of people voted to support abortion rights ballot measures but also voted for Trump, the man responsible for the end of Roe v. Wade and a president likely to enact a national ban.

Montana political science professor Sara Rushing, for example, told TIME that the measures allowed voters to separate abortion from Trump as a candidate, making them believe “you can kind of have your cake and eat it too.”

And Republican strategist Glen Bolger tells US News it’s likely that voters took Trump “at his word that he was not going to support a national ban.” Indeed, one 20-year old Wisconsin voters who calls himself pro-choice said he voted for Trump because, “I believe his policy is that he’s just going to give it back to the states and from there they could decide how important it was.”

This one kills me, because a big part of the reason voters bought this bullshit is because mainstream media outlets didn’t do their jobs. They just repeated Trump’s talking points again and again, without mentioning the language games and lies. (As soon as I saw the headlines claiming he would veto a national ban, I knew we were in real trouble.)

The other thing I don’t think we’re talking about enough is just how many voters didn’t know that a pro-choice ballot measure wouldn’t protect them if Trump enacted a national abortion ban. I think there are going to be a lot of surprised Republican women in states that passed pro-choice ballot measures should there be a federal ban.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion activists like Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute are arguing that the election is proof that abortion rights don’t help Democratic candidates. It’s a truly bizarre take considering abortion was the one topic that was unequivocally successful last week.

Quick hits:

• Moira Donegan at The Guardian lays out how yes, of course, abortion rights will be further restricted under Trump;

• CBS News with what abortion rights might look like under Trump;

• And Slate’s “What’s Next” podcast analyzed the voters who supported Trump and abortion rights.

Ballot Measure Updates

We knew this was coming: Whenever a state has passed a pro-choice ballot measure, Republicans have lined up to figure out a way to stop it from going into effect. (Or to make it as ineffective as possible.) After incoming Missouri House Speaker Jon Patterson said he would respect voters’ wishes on Amendment 3—which will restore abortion rights in the state—Republican Rep. Justin Sparks threw a hissy fit and tried to block him from taking the leadership position.

Sparks said, “On day one, your speaker must address and tackle Amendment 3.” He also criticized Patterson for noting that Missouri voters don’t support the state’s total ban, which doesn’t have rape and incest exceptions. “That’s not what the leader of the Republican caucus should be saying, guys,” he said.

Sparks has a bit of a hard-on for restricting abortion rights; while in the House, he’s filed all sorts of anti-abortion bills, including one that would have made it illegal for Missouri medical students to get abortion training in other states. The Republican legislator also wants to get another abortion ballot measure in front of voters, this time to restrict abortion rights.

The voters made very clear that they want abortion rights restored, but the men obsessed with this issue simply don’t care.

Speaking of men who don’t care what voters want: The Tampa Bay Times has an article about how Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis beat the abortion rights and marijuana amendments (tl;dr using the power of the state to undermine democracy).

Also on Florida: Earlier this evening, I did a video live-stream with Lauren Brenzel, the campaign director of Amendment 4. It was a totally fascinating conversation, so I’ll be posting clips of our chat in tomorrow’s newsletter for those of you who couldn’t watch live.

Stats & Studies

A new study from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANRISH) looks at the landscape of later abortion care post-Dobbs and it’s pretty much what you would imagine. The research, published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, found “critical decreases in the availability of later abortion services” and a decrease in clinics across the board that provide procedural (as opposed to mediation) abortions.

What makes this reduction in clinics so dire is that it comes at the same time that there’s been an increase in patients who need abortions later in their pregnancies. That’s in large part thanks to bans and restrictions that make it harder for people to get abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Whether it’s financial burdens, waiting periods, inability to travel or a simple lack of available appointments—patient care has been delayed across the country.

Given the decrease in clinics providing procedural abortions, the researchers recommend that health care professionals support abortion training, open new abortion clinics “in strategic geographic locations,” and build stronger referral networks.

This is also why it’s so vital that we’re fighting back against stigma around later abortions: We’re already seeing an increase in patients who need later care—and that spike is likely to continue to go up under the new administration.