Abortion, Every Day (1.29.24)

Hospital flagged Brittany Watts because she used the word 'abortion'

Click to skip head: Brittany Watts gives her first interview in Criminalizing Care. In Republican Strategy, the latest move from the GOP to divorce abortion from healthcare. In the States, a landmark ruling in Pennsylvania and more. Ballot Measures & Attacks on Democracy looks at what’s happening in Missouri, Mississippi and Arkansas. In the Nation, Grace writes about the mifepristone case heading to SCOTUS this March. For Interview with an Icon, settle in to read the NY Mag profile of Cecile Richards. In Their True Colors, a reminder of what the anti-abortion movement actually wants. In 2024, how Republicans are running scared—or desperately trying to puff up their chests.

---

Criminalizing Care

Please make the time to watch this interview today: Brittany Watts, the Ohio woman arrested for having a miscarriage, gave her first interview since the ‘abuse of a corpse’ charges against her were dismissed. She spoke to CBS about her experience miscarrying, the way that the nurse who was rubbing her back and comforting her called 911, and how she was targeted for being Black.

I’m so grateful to Brittany for speaking up—and for the way she’s working to make sure this never happens to anyone else. Make sure to watch the whole segment, but don’t be surprised if you get REALLY mad at one of the anchors who makes excuses for the police.

There’s something else I want to flag from CBS’s reporting: You’ll notice that one of the reasons hospital staff got concerned—and began to treat Brittany like a criminal rather than a patient—is “because she started to use the word abortion.”

You know I’ve been writing a lot lately about how the anti-choice movement is working to divorce abortion from healthcare by encouraging medical providers to use different terminology—and even different treatments—when a pregnant person’s life or health are endangered. Instead of saying ‘abortion’, for example, they want people to use the phrase ‘maternal fetal separation’. Instead of giving women abortions, they want doctors to induce patients or give them c-sections. (A true nightmare.)

With all of that context in mind, check out the language in Brittany’s hospital records:

Staff was worried that Brittany “wishes to terminate the pregnancy,” and that she “continues to mention she feels that she is getting or consenting to an abortion.”

Now, remember that Brittany had already been told this is a nonviable pregnancy. She was afraid for her health and life and knew she needed to be treated. So what’s the issue with using the word ‘abortion’? It makes sense that she would bring up termination!

But the staff didn’t like that. They wrote that “ethics supports induction of this patient” if doctors decided she was high risk. (Emphasis mine) They also wrote that if they do perform an “induction,” there should be a conversation with Brittany that the procedure “is not intended to terminate a potentially viable pregnancy.”

So their big concern—big enough to bring in a consult from the ethics committee—was that Brittany talked about her treatment as an abortion. They got nervous, and made judgements, because she used a completely appropriate medical term. The staff at this Catholic institution then used the word ‘abortion’ to make the case that Brittany didn’t want her pregnancy, or that she was callous—a false belief that carried into how way she was turned in by a nurse, the way police turned her home upside down, and why she was charged by a zealous prosecutor.

We know that the case against Brittany, and criminalization more broadly, has a lot of moving parts: racism, misogyny, and all the horrors of the criminal justice system. But we also know that language matters. And I think what we’re seeing here is also how the anti-abortion movement’s war on language can tangibly hurt women.

Republican Strategy: Divorcing Abortion from Healthcare

Let’s spend another minute on this anti-choice strategy of pretending that abortion is distinct from other kinds of healthcare—or that it’s not healthcare at all. In addition to the anti-abortion movement’s efforts to spread this lie via mucking with medical language—consequences to patients be damned—the GOP is doing their part with legislation.

This week, U.S. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah announced a package of anti-choice bills, including one literally called the “Abortion is not Health Care Act.” That particular bill would prevent women from getting any medical expense deductions related to abortion by changing the IRS code that classifies abortions as medical care. Disgusting.

In the States

Good news out of Pennsylvania today: the state Supreme Court ruled that abortion providers can challenge the state’s ban on Medicaid-funded abortion, overruling a decades-old precedent preventing such a case. As The Philadelphia Inquirer points out, the justices stopped short of ruling that abortion rights are protected by the state’s constitution—but they sure came close.

Two justices stated that Pennsylvania’s constitution “secures the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, which includes a right to decide whether to have an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term.” A third left the door open for the same, calling the idea “incredibly insightful.”

Law professor David Cohen, one of the lawyers who argued the case, said, “This issue will come back to the Court in the future, and we now have a great building block to accomplish that goal.” And Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson called the decision “a landmark victory.”

Last week, I told you about legislation introduced by Florida Republicans that would allow parents to sue for the wrongful death of “an unborn child.” While lawmakers claimed the effort had nothing to do with abortion, we know that’s a lie: this is a straight up move to enshrine fetal personhood. (The bill was sponsored by legislators who also sponsored the 15-week and 6-week bans in the state.)

Today, Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, called Republicans on their bluff. Goodhue, who rightly points out that the legislation would allow abusive men to sue over their partner’s or ex partner’s abortions, suggested that GOP lawmakers make a change to the bill to prove that it’s really about protections for parents: She said they should amend it to only allow the pregnant person to file a wrongful death claim.

“That eliminates the father who could be an abuser or a rapist or what have you from holding additional power over that person,” Goodhue said. I’m not holding my breath, of course, but I love this as a move to put Republicans on their heels.

Finally, an Arizona couple wrote a personal appeal for abortion rights this week, sharing their story of miscarriage and abortion care:

“[E]nough with the sloganeering. Every pregnancy has a story behind it, a story involving different lives and situations. Try to understand the emotions, the environment, the individuals and the health issues before applying a slogan to the situation. After all, it’s real life and politics should have nothing to do with it.”

Quick hits:

• More on the Iowa legislation that would allow the state to give money directly to crisis pregnancy centers;

• New Jersey Democrats want to cover out-of-pocket costs for abortion;

• Houston Public Media reports on the efforts to get the the Texas Medical Board to offer specific guidance for doctors who need to perform life-saving abortions.

• And in the wake of a study showing that there have been 65,000 rape-related pregnancies in anti-choice states, researchers find that Tennessee accounts for 5,000 of them. In Kentucky? 3,000.

Ballot Measures & Attacks on Democracy

Let’s start with the good news: Florida pro-choice activists have officially collected enough signatures to get abortion on the 2024 ballot! Floridians Protecting Freedom, the coalition behind the effort, announced Friday that they received word from the Florida Department of State that they had verified over 993,387 petitions—more than 100,000 more than they needed. From Campaign Director Lauren Brenzel:

“Today, our campaign to limit government interference with abortion reached a historic milestone with the assignment of an official ballot number. This November, Floridians should have the chance to vote for Amendment 4 to return control of our bodies and futures back to us, where these personal decisions belong.”

The ballot initiative in Florida is extremely popular—polls show that even the majority of Republicans in the state support the effort. But the amendment needs more than a simple majority to pass; it needs 60%. The other hurdle is the state Supreme Court, which needs to approve the language of the measure in order for it to get on the ballot.

In case you need a refresher, here’s why that’s worrying: First, the Florida Supreme Court is stacked with appointees from Gov. Ron DeSantis—and we’re already worried about how they’re going to rule on a challenge to the state’s 15-week ban. (If they uphold that ban, a newer 6-week ban could go into effect.) Secondly, Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody petitioned the Court in October to reject the measure’s language.

Moody claims that the proposed amendment deliberately tries to mislead voters—and she’s focusing on the measure’s ‘viability’ standard, in particular. (Which brings up a whole other set of issues around ‘viability’ restrictions in general.)

And remember, what happens with abortion rights in Florida won’t just impact those in the state, but the entire region. All of which is to say: we’re keeping a very close eye on this one.

Alas, we’re not done with attacks on democracy yet: I told you last week about efforts to quash the will of voters in Mississippi and Missouri: In Mississippi, Republicans are trying to bring back the ballot measure process in the state—but only if it doesn’t include abortion rights. And in Missouri, the GOP wants to change the ballot measure process to require a majority vote not just in the state—but in five of eight (gerrymandered) congressional districts.

Laurie Bertram Roberts, executive director of Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund, told the Associated Press this weekend, “They’re scared of the people and their voices, so their response is to prevent their voices from being heard.” Roberts also pointed out that the efforts to stop people from having a say on abortion is “the same blueprint we’ve seen in Ohio.”

That’s exactly right, and that’s why it’s so important that we paid close attention to how everything went down in Ohio: because we’re going to see the same tactics again and again. (For background on ballot measure attacks, click here, here and here.)

That said, having the blueprint doesn’t make this moment any less terrifying. In the same AP piece, Missouri Democratic Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo points out that controlling who can vote and how has been a Republican priority for decades:

“This is how democracies die. We are watching it in real time. This is the scariest moment that I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

The Kansas City Star also reported on the Missouri initiative this weekend, noting that activists are looking in part to 2022’s Kansas ballot measure vote for cues on how to win. Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, says, “There are a lot of similarities in the electoral makeup of our states.” It’s definitely worth a read.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion activists protested the kick-off rally for Arkansas’ pro-choice ballot measure now that the state Attorney General has finally signed off on it. Demonstrator Kolbi Bowes told a reporter, “I think it’s great that we live in a democracy where people's voices can be heard,” but that “the solution is to prevent this from getting to the ballot in November.” So maybe you don’t think it’s so great that voters have a voice!

The ballot measure in Arkansas would protect abortion rights in the state constitution up until 18 weeks—which means it would offer less protection than Roe did. The organizers behind the ballot measure say that they’re trying to meet voters where they’re at; there’s also obviously a lot of fear about being accused of extremism. But as I’ve said so many times before: they’re going to call us radical baby-killers no matter what!

Today in the National Review, for example, representatives from Arkansas Right to life and the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council write that the amendment “would allow virtually unrestricted abortion for all nine months of pregnancy.” We know that they’re going to do this every single time! So why not fight for the policy we want and deserve?

In the Nation

The Supreme Court announced today that they’ll hear oral arguments in the mifepristone lawsuit on March 26th, which will likely bring a decision on the case this summer. This ruling will be the biggest abortion rights case since the 2022 Dobbs decision.

The anti-abortion movement has been using a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy, and this case against mifepristone—the first drug in the two-pill regimen to end a pregnancy—is a major piece of that plan.

Anti-abortion groups are targeting the FDA regulations that made mifepristone more accessible—like the tele-health options, rules broadening to who can prescribe the pill, and allowing the medication to be used up until 10 weeks of pregnancy. That means that the Court won’t be ruling on whether to reverse FDA approval of the drug, which is what the anti-abortion movement wanted. But there’s no overstating how damaging the revocation of these newer regulations would be.

SCOTUS’ announcement comes in the wake of new filings by the Justice Department and Danco, a manufacturer of mifepristone, urging the Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and preserve access to the drug. The Biden Administration argued that limiting the availability of abortion medication would impose “great harms” to millions of patients—and noted it would be the first time in history that the Court has attacked the FDA’s expertise and approval process in this way. 

This case also brings the Comstock Act to the foreground: This is the 19th century federal law that Republicans could use to ban mailing abortion medication or anything related to abortion, even in pro-choice states.

Quick hits:

• Abortion funds are struggling to meet the demand for abortion funding assistance after post-Dobbs ‘rage’ giving has slowed;

• Elizabeth Gregory of the Institute for Research on Women, Gender & Sexuality lays out why conservatives are making abortion a labor crisis issue;

• Feminist writer Moira Donegan argues that the Biden campaign’s abortion strategy doesn’t meet the moment;

• And Mary Ziegler has a must-read op-ed in The New York Times about how Trump could enact a backdoor national abortion ban.

Interview With an Icon

If you missed Irin Carmon’s New York Magazine interview with Cecile Richards, please go read it now. Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood, opened up about living with incurable brain cancer—and what it’s been like to fight for abortion rights at the same time she’s fighting this disease.

I don’t think I need to tell you what an icon Cecile is, and all she’s done for abortion rights. But the thing that often gets lost—though not in Irin’s piece—is the incredible person Cecile is. Please read the whole piece, but I’ll leave you with my favorite part:

“Richards thinks Republicans should be asked constantly about the women in ban states who have been forced to bleed out or suffered sepsis because they couldn’t get emergency abortions. ‘We hear a tragic story, or another woman becomes a plaintiff in Texas, and then we move on. It has got to be repetition every fucking day because there is no answer,’ Richards says furiously. ‘And look at the Republicans. They are running and hiding on this issue.’”

Their True Colors

Speaking of the absolute cowards that anti-abortion activists and lawmakers are, let’s talk about Live Action’s Lila Rose. The anti-choice extremist was in San Francisco recently for the West Coast “Walk for Life,” reminding us that the movement’s broad goal is about so much more than abortion. Rose told a San Francisco Chronicle reporter that children only thrive in families that have a married mother and father: “Family is the future. Pro-life is the future.”

This is why it’s so important that we remind people that their movement has never really been about abortion—but forcing pregnancy and childbirth in service of ‘traditional’ gender roles.

“If you believe that a fetus is a human life, then abortion is not health care. In my veterinary career, I did thousands of ultrasounds on animals.…So I think I know mammalian fetal development better than probably anyone here.” -Wisconsin Republican Rep. Joel Kitchens, arguing in favor of an abortion ban, trying to make our heads explode

2024

Democratic congressional candidates are heavily leaning into abortion in their 2024 campaigns, while Republican candidates continue to hide any mention of abortion or pro-life stances on their websites. And USA Today predicts Trump’s role in overturning Roe is going to burn him at the polls.

That fear is everywhere among Republicans: at a recent event with conservative college students, U.S. Rep. Kat Cammack asked the young people to raise their hands if they think Republicans should talk more about abortion. She was trying to prompt them to say that GOP candidates need to stop burying their heads in the sand, but they didn’t take the bait and barely anyone raised their hands. Ha!

Similarly, it’s been been funny to keep an eye on conservative media as the Biden-Harris reelection campaign rolls out with a focus on abortion rights. These Republicans really don’t like the strategy at all—mostly because they know abortion wins elections.

Still, they can’t say that out loud; so conservative pundits claim talking about abortion is a distraction, and Fox News guests rail against it as a “last ditch effort” and “an embarrassment.”

I’m more inclined to agree with Nia-Malika Henderson over at Bloomberg, who writes that Vice President Kamala Harris talking about abortion rights is Trump’s “worst nightmare.”

“She can talk personally about what it means to be a woman in post-Roe America. She can talk about the crimes against women and children she encountered as a prosecutor and how those victims will fare in Dobbs America. She can echo and amplify the everyday concerns and fears millions of women now live with. Most importantly, Harris can channel the anger.”

Watching Harris last week definitely left me with the same feeling—her anger is palpable, and it seriously resonates.

Finally, The New York Times has a piece on something I write about a lot here: the importance of personal abortion stories, and why the Biden re-election campaign is relying so heavily on them in 2024.