Abortion, Every Day (1.22.24)

Iowa docs can only give abortions to rape victims with 'prosecutable' cases

Click to skip ahead: In Told Ya So, confirmation that Republicans are pretending their bans aren’t bans. In the States, Iowa docs need to figure out if a rape victim’s attack is ‘prosecutable’ before giving her an abortion. In Ballot Measure Updates, news out of Colorado, Maine, Maryland and Alabama. In the Nation, Biden & Harris commemorate Roe. An important call to Repeal the Comstock Act. And some quick hits and a new Dem ad in 2024.

---

Told Ya So

There are few things I like more than a victory lap. (So sue me.) If you’re a regular reader, you know one of the things I’ve been obsessed with is the GOP’s war on language. For months, I’ve been flagging different terms that conservatives have been either trying to enforce, like ‘maternal fetal separation’, or eradicate, like ‘ban.’ Today we got proof about their deliberate strategy on both.

First, a pro-choice activist went undercover at Friday’s March for Life breakfast and caught this incredible exchange with U.S. Rep. Andy Harris on tape. When the activist asked Harris if he thought there was a chance for a federal ban, check out what he said:

“We think the use of the word ‘ban’ is a bad idea. You mean a bill that limits abortion? I think we can. We should never use the word ‘ban’. That’s the word they use.”

Well, well, well. Harris goes on to explain why Republicans are calling their abortion bans ‘limits’:

“There majority of Americans believe there should be ‘limits’. That’s the word we have to use because the majority of Americans agree.”

You can’t get much clearer than that! They know their bans are bans, but need to sell them to voters. (Voters who decidedly don’t want them.) Then, because apparently Harris really loves to hear himself talk, he lays out Republicans’ entire plan to rope in the media to garner more public support:

“If you know you’re going to fail at it, I’m not sure it’s worth doing at this point because the media is going to be…but if we change the way we talk about it. If we talk about ‘limits’, not ‘bans’, we concentrate on late term abortions…That gives us a talking point. Actually, you’re the extreme ones…[Talk about] a 7 pound baby to be aborted moments before birth. We’re painting the picture in someone’s mind.”

I know we all know this—the way that they’re trying to put false images in voters’ minds, and the way that they’re trying to change the way people talk about abortion in order to change how they feel about abortion. But still, it’s striking to hear aloud.

The other term I’ve been talking about a lot recently—I even spoke about it at last week’s Senate briefing—is ‘maternal fetal separation’. That’s what anti-abortion activists want to call life-saving abortions—a move to divorce abortion from healthcare and claim that abortion is never necessary to save someone’s health or life.

In an article from The Guardian today on the anti-abortion efforts around the Roe anniversary, reporters flagged this quote from Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins:

“When you’re looking at a case where a woman’s life is at risk, where the physician believes that she can no longer safely carry her child in her womb, or she may lose her life – we wouldn’t consider that an abortion… it’s a ‘maternal-fetal separation’.”

It’s such a bizarre term that it seems impossible to think that they could ever mainstream it. But remember: it’s a term that already appears in legislation! They’re halfway there. That’s why it’s so important that we’re five steps ahead of them when it comes to language.

In the States

Speaking of divorcing abortion from healthcare: I told you on Friday about Wisconsin Republicans’ bill to ban abortion at 14 weeks—and how it would force women to undergo c-sections or vaginal delivery in lieu of standard abortion care. (Again, this is a move that’s solely about pretending as if women don’t need life-saving abortions.)

Adding insult to injury: The Wisconsin GOP is framing the legislation— which would be put to voters on the ballot—as a compromise. Sen. Mary Felzkowski, for example, called the 14-week ban in line with restrictions that most voters want, saying it “strik[es] a balance between protecting life and showing compassion and respect for women who find themselves in difficult situations.”

Ah yes, the incredible compassion of forcing women into major abdominal surgery! As I wrote last week, Gov. Tony Evers has promised to veto the bill, but that doesn’t make it any less important to talk about. What I find surprising, to be honest, is that while there’s been media coverage of the bill as an abortion ban, so far Abortion, Every Day is the only publication that’s mentioned the forced delivery and c-sections. Which is…a problem.

Speaking of extremist Republicans: Iowa’s Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird was scheduled to speak at an anti-abortion rally today. This is the woman who stopped funding for emergency contraception for rape victims—most of whom were children.

Also in Iowa, I can’t believe I didn’t see this earlier: guidance for doctors on the state’s 6-week ban tells them that in order to give a rape victim an abortion, the attack needs to be “prosecutable.” Seriously.

First, a refresher: Iowa’s 6-week ban is currently blocked, but the state Board of Medicine still has to pass guidance on how doctors should adhere to rape and incest exceptions if the law is enacted. There has been an ongoing fight on the proposed rules for doctors because they’re completely bananas—requiring medical providers, for example, to make a “good-faith assessment that the woman is being truthful.” (In other words, they want doctors to interrogate their patients.)

You can read the guidelines here, but as Iowa Rep. Rick Olson notes, the idea that doctors would have to sort out if their patients’ rapes are “prosecutable” is fucking insane. (Okay he didn’t say that, but I feel like it was implied.)

Washington abortion providers—who are seeing an exponentially increased number of out-of-state patients—said today that they’re the target of escalating anti-choice harassment. Karl Eastlund, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho says, “our staff face unique threats and harassment given our close proximity to Idaho, which has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country.”

Staffing shortages, he says, have added to the problem. Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell echoed the warnings, pointing out the “persistent and growing strain on our state’s reproductive health care system,” and flagging that “the Washington-Idaho border is the epicenter of this problem.”

In better news:

• Missouri Democrats, including gubernatorial hopeful Rep. Crystal Quade, proposed a package of pro-choice bills today;

• The New York Senate passed a measure to protect abortion patients’ privacy—SB 158D creates restrictions on tech companies’ ability to sell customers’ health data;

• North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper joined abortion rights activists at a rally commemorating Roe;

• Pennsylvania Democrats announced legislation that would repeal onerous TRAP laws in the state;

• And Minnesota anti-abortion activists are sad about losing so much ground. Oh well!

Ballot Measure Updates

Colorado pro-choice activists have officially launched their campaign to protect abortion rights in the state constitution! Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom—a coalition of groups including Cobalt, Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, ACLU of Colorado and more—are proposing a measure that stands out from other recent efforts. Why? They’re not using any ‘viability’ standards.

In a statement, Cobalt President Karen Middleton said, “Coloradans trust people and their doctors, not politicians, to make decisions about abortion.” THANK YOU.

Colorado is already a pro-choice state, so Middleton and other abortion rights activists see this as an opportunity to continue the state’s national leadership on the issue. They also want to ensure that the right is protected from any future Republican legislation, and they want to end the state’s ban on public funds for abortion.

The measure needs a little over 124,000 valid signatures by April 26 to get on the November ballot.

Colorado isn’t the only pro-choice state launching an abortion rights ballot measure this week. In Maine, Democrats are pushing for a constitutional amendment to protect abortion. Gov. Janet Mills lent her support to the effort today, saying, “No matter how strong our laws may be, they are subject to everchanging political tides and can be repealed.”

The legislation needs two-thirds support in both the House and Senate to get on the ballot for voters, and Maine Republicans are already calling the move dead in the water. Republican Sen. Lisa Keim told the Associated Press, “There’s no way it’s going to pass,” calling the legislation “political theater.”

There’s also a pro-choice ballot measure initiative being launched in Maryland. As is the case with efforts in other pro-choice states, advocates are reminding voters that just because the law is on their side now doesn’t mean it always will be. At a press conference today, Maryland first lady Dawn Moore said that “too many states have turned their backs on women.”

“If we vote ‘yes’ on reproductive freedom, our rights will be protected well into the future, no matter who’s in office, but if we fall short, if we don’t get it done, I promise there’s always going to be someone out there looking to turn back the clock.”

Finally, in our last bit of ballot measure news: Alabama Democrat Sen. Vivian Davis-Figures filed a bill that seeks to add an abortion rights amendment to the state constitution. The proposed amendment would repeal the state ban and protect abortion rights until ‘viability’. Obviously, the GOP’s supermajority in the state prohibits any movement on that legislation, but good on Sen. Davis-Figures for keeping the issue in the public debate.

In the Nation

President Joe Biden spoke about abortion rights today, telling Republicans to “stop playing politics with the women’s lives and freedom.” Biden’s remarks, which commemorated the anniversary of Roe, were part of Democrats’ 2024 push to frame abortion rights as a freedom issue.

The remarks were good, but I felt bad for his speechwriters because of course he couldn’t help but go off-script, saying that Roe didn’t support “abortion on demand.” WHY? You can watch his full speech here.

Vice President Kamala Harris also spoke about abortion today, with markedly more enthusiasm. A particularly strong moment came when Harris blasted Donald Trump for bragging about ending Roe, saying he was proud.

“Proud that women across our nation are suffering? Proud that women have been robbed of a fundamental freedom? Proud that doctors could be thrown in prison for caring for their patients? That young women today have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers? How dare he?”

Harris also reminded her Wisconsin audience that “momentum is on our side,” and that every time abortion has been on the ballot, abortion has won. You can watch the Vice President’s remarks in full below, but I was really happy to see the outrage and energy she brought today. We needed it.

The Biden Administration also announced two new abortion initiatives to strengthen reproductive healthcare today. The first will focus on educating Americans about their right to emergency abortion care, and supporting hospitals that provide emergency abortions. The move is particularly timely—it comes as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) heads to the Supreme Court.

The second initiative will focus on increasing contraception access and affordability. HHS Xavier Becerra said in a statement, “Abortion is health care. Contraception is health care. And health care decisions should be made by a patient with her doctor, not by politicians.”

The Washington Post reports that the moves are in part to gain support from abortion rights advocates who feel like the Biden Administration hasn’t done enough on the issue:

“Abortion rights advocates have been frustrated with the administration’s implementation of the emergency-care law, citing a case in which federal officials did not penalize an Oklahoma hospital that denied an emergency abortion to a woman with a potentially life-threatening pregnancy complication.”

Quick hits:

• House Democratic Whip Rep. Katherine Clark writes in MSNBC that the end of Roe was a catastrophe, but “it could still get much worse”;

• NPR’s “Morning Edition” on what the fight for abortion rights looks like in 2024;

• The American Prospect looks at Roe at 51;

• And Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said on “Face the Nation” that it would be good for Biden to up his enthusiasm for abortion rights, and that “I think people want to know that this is a president that is fighting.”

“I feel like I’m standing in the middle of a crowded room, screaming, warning, ‘Bad things are coming,’ and nobody’s listening.” - OBGYN Dr. Amy Adante in an interview with The 19th

Repeal the Comstock Act. Now.

If you read anything today, let it be this excellent op-ed from law professors and friends-of-AED, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché. In it, they lay out why it’s so important that Democrats make a move on the Comstock Act—which they call “the most significant national threat to reproductive rights.”

I spoke about this a bit at the briefing last week, but the short version is that Republicans won’t need a national abortion ban if they enforce Comstock—that’s why the anti-abortion movement is putting so much effort into it. As Cohen, Donley and Rebouché point out, with a Republican in the White House, the Comstock Act could be interpreted to ban not just abortion medication but anything used for abortion—like clinic supplies.

And while the professors concede that an effort to repeal the Comstock Act wouldn’t pass in this Congress, it would force Republicans to say the quiet part out loud:

“With a repeal bill on the table, representatives would have to state publicly whether they defend a law written at a time when women couldn’t vote, couldn’t say no to their husbands’ sexual advances, were barred from most professions (including the legal profession), and had their legal identity disappear upon marriage.”

Make sure to read the whole piece, truly. In related news, Mark Lee Dickson, the anti-abortion activist that goes town-to-town passing travel bans and ‘sanctuary city’ ordinances, told the States Newsroom, “If we got Donald J. Trump back in the White House, he could end abortion in every single state in America, by enforcing the Comstock Act.” They’re very much planning on it.

2024

Democrats are focusing on abortion rights for 2024 in the hopes that it brings them control of the House, NPR reports. To that end, House Democrats launched a new ad highlighting the GOP’s anti-abortion extremism:

• Nikki Haley admits that she’d sign a federal abortion ban;

• And bye bye, Ron DeSantis! Don’t let the door hit your heels on the way out.

You Love to See It

Some terrific news out of Washington this week: pharmacists in the pro-choice state are poised to start prescribing abortion medication directly to patients. Right now, ten Washington pharmacists are being trained by the Pharmacy Abortion Access Project on how to screen patients and dispense abortion medication; they’re expected to start prescribing in the next few weeks.

As I reported earlier in the newsletter—Washington doctors have been overwhelmed with out-of-state patients. A move like this, especially if it catches on, could be a game-changer. Don Downing, one of the project founders, says that they expect the change will have an enormous impact in the state. From NPR:

“‘This is about meeting women where they are,’ says Downing, adding that close to 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy and that patients visit their pharmacist almost twice as frequently as they visit their primary care physician. ‘We do believe this can serve as a model for other states.’”

Remember, more than half of abortions are done with medication—so the more access we have, the better. Increased abortion medication access also makes it easier for people who can only get procedural abortions to be able to do so without a longer waiting period.