Abortion, Every Day (2.2.24)

Mississippi proposes abortion travel ban

Click to skip ahead: In Travel Ban News, Mississippi joins other Republican-led states proposing what they’re calling ‘anti-trafficking’ laws’. South Dakota takes center stage in Attacks on Democracy. In Ballot Measure Updates, news out of Arkansas, Maine and Missouri. Democrats in Iowa show us How to Protect Birth Control. In the States, a ruling from the Wyoming Supreme Court. In the Nation, Democrats ask the Biden administration to focus on the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes. And finally, speaking of criminalization: In Criminalizing Care, cops in California are ignoring an order to stop sharing license plate data with anti-choice states.

---

Travel Ban News

Well, another Republican-led state has proposed a travel ban. Last week, it was Tennessee and Oklahoma; this week, Mississippi joins the fray.

Mississippi House Bill 713, sponsored by Rep. Dan Eubanks, is near identical to the other travel ban bills, which would make it a crime to “recruit, harbor, or transport” a minor in order to get an abortion. Remember, that language is deliberately broad enough to criminalize someone giving a teen the url to a clinic website or lending them gas money to leave the state. After Idaho passed a travel ban with the same language last year, it was blocked for violating the first amendment.

As I’ve written so many times before: this doesn’t stop with teens. The entire point is to restrict travel for any pregnant person considering an abortion. Multiple Texas counties have passed ordinances that make it illegal to help someone—of any age—leave the state for abortion care. And there’s a reason that Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is making legal arguments likening restricting pregnant women’s travel to restricting the movement of sex offenders—they have a particular end game in mind. And it’s not one that stops with their fake teen ‘trafficking’ laws.

Attacks on Democracy

This is wild: South Dakota Republicans want to interrogate the organizer working to pass a pro-choice ballot measure in the state. House Majority Leader Will Mortenson sent a letter to Rick Weiland of Dakotans for Health, asking him to attend a House State Affairs Committee to answer questions about the proposed amendment.

From Rep. Jon Hansen, who’s been working to stop the amendment from getting on the November ballot:

“Weiland knows this is too extreme for South Dakota, and has spent the last year misleading voters about his amendment. If he decides to attend this hearing he’ll have a lot to answer for.”

So basically Republicans are looking to intimidate a citizen because they don’t like what he’s organizing for. Democratic Rep. Erin Healy called the move “unprecedented,” saying, “I can’t think of another instance when we have invited sponsors of a citizen-led measure to testify.”

Ballot Measure Updates

We have some good news out of Missouri, at least: The state’s abortion rights ballot measure campaign has raised more than $3 million since launching last month. From Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri:

“The outpouring of support that we are seeing from Missourians to join the campaign by volunteering, donating, and staying informed confirms what we already knew—Missourians are ready to fight back against political overreach and end Missouri’s abortion ban.”

The campaign, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, is pushing a pro-choice measure that would protect abortion rights until ‘viability’. (For some background on the effort—and Republicans’ attacks against it—click here.) The Kansas City Star reports that the anti-abortion group opposing the amendment, Missouri Stands with Women, has raised significantly less. Good.

Maine Democrats advanced a bill yesterday to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, but it’s unlikely to go much further. The bill needs two-thirds support in the legislature before getting on the ballot, and Republicans are still pissed off over Democrats expanding access last year to allow abortion throughout pregnancy with a doctor’s recommendation.

In fact, during the Judiciary Committee meeting yesterday, Republican Rep. David Haggan said the amendment “feels to me like this is more recreational murder or recreational abortion.” I’m not sure what “recreational abortion” is—do we get to jump rope or go camping after?

Finally, in Arkansas, the Arkansas Advocate profiled the organizers working to protect abortion rights in the state constitution. Rachel Spencer, a volunteer with Arkansans for Limited Government, says she felt powerless after Roe was overturned but that “we can take that power back”:

“In our world of increasingly polarized politics, it’s so easy to look at a region or a state and write that state off or to think that people in that state somehow deserve the political outcomes that they are receiving, and that’s just not true. So I think it’s really exciting to have a chance as individuals, just as people that live here, to stand up and say, no. These politicians are not representing all of us, and there are amazing people in the South.”

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin recently signed off on the language of the amendment; now organizers need to collect 90k signatures by July 5th in order to get the issue on the November ballot. Because Republicans have been going all out to ensure that voters don’t have a say on abortion rights, a law passed last year requires signatures be gathered from 50 of Arkansas’ 75 counties. (Before that, initiatives only needed signatures from 15 counties.) Spencer says, however that it’s a chance to show how widespread pro-choice support is.

Just as a reminder: there’s been some discord over the Arkansas measure because it would offer less protections than Roe did, only protecting abortion rights up until 18 weeks. (There’s a good piece in Slate about this.)

How to Protect Birth Control

Love this out of Iowa: Democrats there are proposing legislation to increase access to contraception, and they’ve done something vital in the bill—they’re defining what they mean by ‘birth control’. SF 2135 says the government can’t infringe on Iowans’ right to contraception—specifying birth control pills, IUDs, emergency contraception and more. Democratic Sen. Zach Wahls says the definitions were deliberate:

“One of the things that you often see in this debate is that opponents of reproductive rights like to muddy the waters and use really unclear definitions. It’s actually really important that you talk with plain language about what we’re trying to do.”

As I’ve reported in Abortion, Every Day, redefining contraception as ‘abortion’ is a major part of Republicans’ strategy to ban birth control. So I’m really glad to see Iowa Democrats are paying attention to that tactic and thinking ahead.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Idaho are also looking to expand birth control, but they’re excluding emergency contraception. Senate Bill 1234, sponsored by Sen. Melissa Wintrow, would require insurance companies provide up to a six month supply of prescribed contraceptives. It’s a smart move—people should be able to get more than just a one month supply of birth control, especially when you’re talking about those who may live in rural areas and can’t get out to a pharmacy or doctor as often.

Doctors testifying in support of the legislation also pointed that it’s not uncommon for insurance providers to authorize a year of prescriptions for preventative medicine, yet for some reason birth control is treated differently. (And it shouldn’t be.) But the bill makes clear that it wouldn’t require health plans to reimburse anything “intended to induce abortion…or for any emergency contraception.”

I really really wish Democrats wouldn’t do that. I understand that they need to get their bill passed, but lumping emergency contraception in with abortion only bolsters Republicans’ bullshit claim.

In the States

Let’s start with some good news: The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled today that anti-abortion lawmakers and activists can’t intervene in the lawsuit over the state’s abortion bans. WyoFile has some good background on the case, but here’s the short version:

There are two abortion bans in Wyoming; one is the trigger law ban that went into effect after Roe was overturned, the other is a specific ban on abortion medication. After a group of women and OBGYNs challenged the laws, a judge blocked the enforcement of both. In response, Right to Life of Wyoming, along with two Republican state reps and the Secretary of State, fought to join the suit.

You will not be surprised to find out that the three Republicans are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-choice legal group that brought the case that overturned Roe and is trying to repeal the FDA approval of mifepristone.

Today, the state Supreme Court ruled that the trio didn’t have significant legal interests to join the suit, so the challenge can continue without being further held up. Whew.

The Associated Press reports that Tennessee Republicans are under pressure to loosen the state’s abortion ban, which is one of the strictest in the nation. Up until recently, there wasn’t even an exception for a pregnant person’s life: doctors had to break the law and then defend why the abortion was necessary.

You may remember that even some Republicans in the state wanted to add exceptions for women’s health last year—but Tennessee Right to Life holds so much power over conservative lawmakers, they were unable to pass anything other than a extremely watered down fake ‘exception’ that doctors said didn’t change much of anything. This is the group, after all, that argued hemorrhaging isn’t an “objective” medical reason for an abortion. (For more about the power local anti-choice groups have over state legislatures, check out this terrific piece from ProPublica.)

Now, with a group of women suing the state after being denied care, the spotlight is back on Republicans and their extreme ban. You would think they’d be worried: after all, recent polling shows that Tennessee voters overwhelmingly oppose the law. In fact, 65% of Republicans want to see the state ban made less harsh—as do 56% of those who identify as conservatives!

But instead of working to ease off abortion restrictions, Republicans have doubled down: They’ve proposed a travel ban that would making helping teenager get an abortion punishable by 15 years in prison.

Love this: Washington Democrats are proposing legislation that might help abortion providers, who have faced increased harassment and threats since Roe was overturned. Senate Bill 5960 would give medical professionals prescribing abortion medication the option of removing their names from prescription bottles, instead replacing them with their national practitioner identification number or the health care facility name.From Dr. Erin Berry of Planned Parenthood:

“Washington providers should not live in fear of having their name on prescription bottles dug out of trash cans, shared by anti-choice groups or being targeted by abusive partners or hostile family members.”

Earlier this week, I predicted that Wisconsin anti-abortion groups were asking their followers to send letters to the editor about the so-called Republican ‘compromise’ ban. Like this one, for example, that calls the bill “common sense” and legislation that “reflects most of the state’s population stance on the issue.”

First of all, a reminder: this legislation—would force doctors to give women c-sections instead of emergency abortions—is nowhere near a compromise. Republicans are just desperate to get any sort of abortion ban on the books right now. (Read some background here.) They know the issue is heading to the state Supreme Court—which is now under liberal control—and that they’re going to lose.

So they figure they’ll try to make it look as if Democrats are extremists for not going along with a bill that’s actually a radical abortion ban. Absurd.

Finally, Mississippi Republicans didn’t just introduce a travel ban this week: they’re also trying to push through legislation that would ban the mailing of abortion medication and make it illegal to advertise or spread information about abortion. Keep an eye out for a separate column on this legislation—because even if it’s not likely to go anywhere, Republicans are giving us a map of how they want to ban speech around healthcare.

Quick hits:

• Idaho’s ‘abortion trafficking’ law will remain blocked as it’s battled out in the courts despite efforts from the Republican Attorney General to allow the state to enforce it;

• Florida Democrats are introducing legislation to make contraception more accessible;

• A new court ruling supports New Jersey buffer zones (remember, the anti-abortion movement is going after these big time);

• Stat News reports that the Texas Medical Board is under pressure to define emergency exception to abortion ban;

• And POLITICO interviewed New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham about her amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting mifepristone access.

In the Nation

A group of over 150 Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to the White House this week, asking the Biden administration to focus on “the longstanding pattern of criminalization of people on the basis of their pregnancies and pregnancy outcomes.” The letter, led by the congressional Democratic Women’s Caucus, focused specifically on Brittany Watts—the Ohio woman who was charged with ‘abuse of a corpse’ after miscarrying at home.

“The Dobbs decision has only escalated efforts to charge people with crimes related to their pregnancies, and we are deeply concerned about this sharp increase in the criminalization of pregnant people—all of whom deserve the right to control their own bodies, lives, and futures.”

Democrats urged Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra to “provide direct public educational, financial, and legal services support” to combat pregnancy criminalization, including using federal resources to investigate pregnancy-related criminal prosecutions, expand HIPAA education, and enforce statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

As Mother Jones reports, this signals strong (and pretty unified) support for Biden to incorporate more reproductive justice into his abortion efforts in the White House.

Meanwhile, military leaders wrote in The Washington Post this week that abortion access is a national security issue. Former secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force point to the mifepristone case heading to the Supreme Court, noting that “threatening vital reproductive health care will only make it harder to recruit and retain women across the military and meet the security challenges of a dangerous world.”

As you all know, abortion medication is used by more than 50% of those ending their pregnancies, and is especially important for those—like military service members—who may live or be stationed in remote locations, and rely on tele-health.

Quick hits:

• The FDA is urging the Supreme Court to reject the petition from Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas asking to intervene in the Texas mifepristone lawsuit;

• The Hill on the recent attacks on EMTALA, the federal law that protects patients who need emergency abortion care;

• And the Biden administration is facing pressure to make sure the first over-the-counter birth control pill is affordable.

Criminalizing Care

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is calling on California Attorney General Rob Bonta to crack down on police agencies that are still sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with anti-choice states, despite the AG’s guidance prohibiting as much.

You may remember that the EFF launched a successful months-long campaign to get Bonta to issue that guidance—pointing out that ALPR data could be used to track the movements of out-of-state abortion patients coming to California for care. Law enforcement from anti-choice states could then use that information to prosecute abortion-related ‘crimes’. The campaign was part of a broader post-Dobbs effort by abortion rights and digital privacy groups to protect patient data.

This week, the EFF and the ACLU sent a letter to Bonta, outlining 35 police agencies in the state that aren’t complying with the rule:

“We urge your office to explore all potential avenues to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies immediately comply. We are deeply concerned that the information could be shared with agencies that do not respect California’s commitment to civil rights and liberties and are not covered by California’s privacy protections.” 

For more information on the increasing danger of law enforcement’s ability to track abortion and gender-affirming care—from ALPRs to reverse warrants—check out this report from STOP (Surveillance Technology Oversight Project).