Abortion, Every Day (9.7.23)

Republicans ramp up war on birth control

In the States

It was just a few weeks ago that I outlined Republicans’ strategy to ban birth control by redefining certain types of contraception—like IUDs and the morning after pill—as ‘abortifacients’. Now here we are, in Oregon of all places, watching conservatives do exactly that.

The Oregon Capital Chronicle reports that Oregon Right to Life filed a suit this week seeking an exemption from a state law that requires insurance plans provide contraception coverage—a ruling that would allow other companies to do the same. (The group cites the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby as justification.)

As predicted, the group claims that emergency contraception and certain kinds of IUDs aren’t birth control at all, but abortifacients. In fact they won’t even call them birth control, instead referring to them throughout their suit as “abortifacient ‘contraceptives’.” This is how they ban birth control—not with a single law, but by chipping away at access, a little at time.

Grace told you a little yesterday about what’s happening in the legal challenge against Wyoming’s abortion ban, where Republicans have refused to answer questions about the details of their ban because it would be too “burdensome” to do so. Now the state is arguing that the plaintiff’s eight experts shouldn’t be allowed to testify in the case. So essentially, they state doesn’t want to talk about the ban and they don’t want anyone else to be able to talk about the ban either. It’s almost as if answering questions or hearing expert testimony would have a negative impact on their argument!

Abortion rights advocates in Ohio are still fighting in court to get the inflammatory summary for their ballot measure changed. (Remember, Republicans drafted a ballot summary designed to mislead and scare Ohioans when they go to vote on the amendment.) The Ohio Capital Journal reports on the pro-choice groups’ request that state Supreme Court ensure the full language of the amendment is included in what voters see this November, and that any lies are removed.

Lawyers for the group also point out that the people who voted for the summary language have been some of the leading voices trying to stymie the amendment: state Sen. Theresa Gavarone called the ballot measure “dangerous,” and asserted that the amendment entailed an ‘assault on parental rights,” the court filing says. Just another reminder that the GOP will stop at nothing to ban abortion. (Related: The New Republic has a run down on Ohio Republicans’ attacks on democracy and abortion rights.)

Abortion wins elections—even in Kentucky, where an anti-abortion ballot measure failed last year. Democrats in the state have taken notice: Gov. Andy Beshear is attacking his Republican opponent, Daniel Cameron, as an anti-abortion extremist. Check out his latest campaign ad:

And the Associated Press points out that while Cameron has relied on his anti-abortion bonafides for most of his career, he’s been noticeably quieter on the issue since winning the nomination. Wonder why!

Abortion rights are so popular that even Republicans are trying to seem more pro-choice to win: U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado has a GOP challenger that’s making abortion a part of his campaign. Republican Russ Andrews says that even though his campaign staff advised him not to put anything about the issue on his website, he wants to talk about it. He told the Aspen Times that he believes abortion should be legal until 22 weeks into pregnancy. He added, “I don’t mean to sound like one of those men telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies.”

Also in Colorado: Check out this interview with abortion rights advocate Laura Chapin about the new pro-choice ballot measure I flagged last week that would end the state’s ban on public funds for abortion care.

If you’re a regular reader, you likely already know that Missouri’s abortion ban is being challenged on religious freedom grounds, and that pro-choice activists are working to get a ballot measure in front of voters in order to restore abortion rights. But there’s another challenge to the state’s ban that you might not be familiar with. (I mentioned the case briefly in July.) A prosecutor is suing over the state’s abortion ban, arguing that the criminal penalties violate the state constitution and that it’s unclear how state attorneys are meant to interpret the law.

Jean Peters Baker, the prosecutor for Jackson County, filed a petition a few months ago. During a hearing yesterday, state lawyer Joshua Divine said, “You can't just sue because you don't like the abortion laws that are on the books.” I’ll keep you updated as more comes out on the case.

In Michigan today, Democrats officially introduced the Reproductive Health Act—the legislation I’ve been telling you about that will repeal most of the state’s TRAP laws. The legislation would do away with the 24-hour waiting period in the state, as well onerous restrictions on clinics, and the ban on Medicaid-funded abortions. The RHA will not, however, repeal the state’s parental consent law. I wrote about this trade-off last week, which I think has a lot to do with what’s happening in Ohio and other states with pro-choice ballot measures. Michigan Public Radio has more info on legislation today, as well.

Finally, a reminder that oral arguments in the legal challenge against Florida’s 15-week abortion ban begin tomorrow. The ruling in that case will determine what happens with the state’s recently-passed 6-week abortion ban, as well. We’re also watching as abortion rights advocates in the state move forward with a pro-choice ballot measure.

Quick hits:

• The Associated Press reports on some unsurprising hypocrisy from Wisconsin Republicans who want to impeach state Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz;

• The Orlando Sentinel on Florida Supreme Court Justice Justice Charles Canady’s conflicts on the state’s abortion ban case;

• Truthout and Scripps cover Texas’ war on travel;

• And a new study from Brigham and Women’s Hospital shows that Massachusetts has seen an increase in out-of-state abortion patients.

In the Nation

The lawyers for the anti-abortion activist who was found guilty of violating the FACE Act last week told the Washington Examiner that they plan to bring a challenge against the federal law. Martin Cannon, of the conservative Thomas More Society, claims that the Dobbs ruling means that the FACE Act is no longer necessary. “There's a very serious question about whether the federal government has any further interest in the abortion issue,” Cannon said, arguing that states can pass protections for clinics if they want to.

And in international news: In Mexico, where abortion was just decriminalized (Vox has a piece on why this is big news for the whole region), anti-activists say they’re looking to the United States for inspiration on how to do their work.

2024

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Pence told Fox News that he “fully” supports access to contraception—as if that’s something we’re meant to be grateful for. But please remember, when Pence says that he supports birth control, chances are he’s not talking about the forms of contraception that anti-abortion groups have claimed are ‘abortifacients’. And while I don’t expect any journalistic integrity or rigor from Fox News, we should be pushing other reporters to ask all of the candidates about their thoughts on IUDs and emergency contraception—which too many conservatives believe aren’t birth control at all.

Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ grand new plan for abortion is requiring men to pay child support starting at conception—something that hasn’t gone over too well so far!

And as Republicans continue to panic over what abortion rights will mean for them in upcoming elections, South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace is still out there presenting herself as the moderate voice of reason. She told CNN this weekend, “I’m pro-life. I have a fantastic pro-life voting record, but I also understand that we cannot be assholes to women.” Now, Mace is right that Republicans in moderate district who are taking a hardline on abortion are “walking the plank” and dooming themselves. But her preferred abortion rights policies aren’t actually helpful.

Let’s say, for example, that Mace manages to convince a few lawmakers to include rape and incest exceptions in a state ban. So what? We know that no one can access exceptions anyway, so it doesn’t change people’s lives in a meaningful way! Mace also has pushed for 12- and 15-week bans—but we know that laws like that are just stop-overs to total bans, and that similar legislation that’s been passed makes earlier abortion available in name only.

Anti-Choice Strategy: In-State Confinement

If you’re like me, you’re still spinning from the stories last week about Republicans’ plan around restricting women’s travel. (My column here.) Anti-abortion activists are passing local “trafficking” ordinances that make it illegal to drive someone out-of-state for abortion care, and the Alabama Attorney General wants to arrest people who help patients get care outside of their home state. (By the way, Abortion, Every Day is still the only place that’s pointed out Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall argued that the state can restrict women’s right to travel—not just people’s ability to help them do so.)

According to law professor Mary Ziegler, it’s even worse than it sounds. In addition to enshrining a culture of fear and emboldening abusers, Ziegler points out that the “trafficking” ordinances in Texas are meant to build a case for fetal personhood.

“The proponents of the ordinance stress that any travel for abortion involves trafficking, even if the abortion-seeker desperately wants to end a pregnancy. That’s because they focus on the fetus, not the pregnant patient—and argue that bringing a fetus across state lines violates the rights and personhood of the fetus. Even if the law is never enforced, it will be one more data point that anti-abortion activists can point to later when returning to the Supreme Court—and insisting that the conservative judiciary revisit the idea of personhood.”

If you want to hear more about the Republican plan to restrict travel from Ziegler and other experts, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace spoke to the law professor, along with Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett and Dr. Kavita Patel:

In related news: Hillary Clinton spoke out yesterday about the news out of Alabama, tweeting, “I'm not seeing enough people talking about this horrific move by Republican officials in Alabama to restrict women's freedom of movement. You've got to be kidding me.”

And in Texas, one of the towns considering a ‘trafficking’ ordinance, Llano, has tabled the policy for now. I’m hoping that all the negative media coverage is making people think twice.

Stats & Studies

The Guttmacher Institute has new research out on state-level abortion numbers, and the way that bans have impacted where (and if) people are getting care. The biggest takeaway from the study—which compares abortion data from the first six months of this year to numbers from 2020—is that many, many Americans are traveling for abortion care.

The numbers of abortions rose in almost every state where it’s still legal, but it was border states that saw the biggest increases: In Illinois, for example, there were 18,300 more abortions than in 2020, and New Mexico saw a 220% increase in the number of abortions.

It’s not surprising that the number of abortions rose so significantly in border states, but it is especially important given Republicans’ attacks on women’s right to travel. There is a reason they want to confine women to anti-choice states! Consider what Katie Daniel, the state policy director at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told The New York Times about Guttmacher’s research:

“There is the feeling among legislators that we’ve passed strong laws here and yet our neighbors in Colorado or Illinois are allowing these businesses to pop up on our border.”

Other notable states with increases in abortions were North Carolina and Florida—which drives home just how damaging bans in those areas will be to access. (North Carolina recently passed a ban, and the Florida Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling that will allow for the enforcement of a 6-week ban.)

Several things to note about Guttmacher’s study: The data only accounts for in-clinic care; it doesn’t measure self-managed abortion where someone might be getting abortion medication from an online pharmacy or accessing them through a community network. (And we know that this is how many people have been ending their pregnancies since Roe was overturned.) The study also doesn’t include any information about abortion care that was denied.

More in Stats & Studies: A new study on tele-health abortion shows that the further women live from clinics, the more likely they are to rely on tele-health for abortion medication. This is interesting: the study found that younger women were more likely to seek care at a brick-and-mortar clinic, something researchers said may be because young people are “wary of tele-health’s legitimacy and whether getting care this way really works.”

You Love to See It

Earlier this week, I told you that a Nebraska anti-abortion group had successfully gotten a billboard removed that advertised the fact that the state is imprisoning women for having abortions. Well, it turns out that the group claimed a victory that wasn’t actually theirs. In a hilarious turn of events, Jezebel reports that the ad space buy for the billboards simply expired.

A representative from Free & Just, the pro-choice group that put up the ads, told Jezebel, “This is a sad and desperate attempt by Nebraska Right to Life to gain relevance and claim victory when they know their dangerous and extreme positions are unpopular among the majority of Nebraskans.”