Alabama had 21% Drop in OBGYN Residency Applications

5.27.24

Click to skip ahead: In ‘Coerced’ Abortion, a look at a growing anti-abortion strategy. In the States, news from Florida, California, Virginia and more. In the Nation, Hillary Clinton says Dems should have done more on abortion. Stats & Studies shows drops in OBGYN residency applications in anti-choice states. Finally, You Love to See It looks at a Texas pregnancy center that gives patients accurate information and all of their options.

---

‘Coerced’ Abortion

Earlier today, I published an explainer about the new Louisiana law classifying abortion medication as a controlled substance, but I want to take a closer look at the messaging Republicans used to advance the legislation: ‘coerced abortion’. The GOP in Louisiana insisted that the law isn’t about controlling women, but protecting us from abusive men seeking to forcibly end our pregnancies.

Now, feigning concern for women’s health and safety is not a new anti-abortion strategy: Activists and lawmakers trying to ban mifepristone relied on the (false) argument that the abortion medication is dangerous, Republican travel bans are being framed as ‘anti-trafficking’ legislation, and all sorts of anti-abortion policies—from waiting periods to TRAP laws—have been passed under the guise of keeping women safe.

But ‘coerced abortion’ is a relatively newer talking point that’s gaining steam quickly. I first flagged this term last year, when David Reardon of the Charlotte Lozier Institute wrote an op-ed at The Hill arguing that Republicans needed “a new abortion plan.” His advice? “Focus on unwanted abortions.”

Reardon said because “no one is openly in favor of coerced abortions,” Republicans should implement new restrictions by claiming that women are routinely pressured into ending pregnancies. The Charlotte Lozier Institute was pushing out a similar strategy around the same time, claiming that telehealth abortion enables abusers to force abortion medication on their victims.

Now, if anti-abortion activists and legislators were really concerned about women’s safety, they’d probably stop passing laws that enable domestic abusers and harassers. And while coerced abortions absolutely do happen, experts point out that it is far more common for a domestic abuser to pressure or force women into unwanted pregnancies—a way to forever tie their victims to them. But anti-abortion activists don’t like to talk about that. (In fact, crisis pregnancy centers have been known to tell pregnant victims that having a baby will ‘calm down’ their abusers.)

As I mentioned in my explainer earlier today, this is all about public perception—a way to frame extremist restrictions as ‘pro-woman.’ And it’s not just happening in Louisiana; Republicans in multiple states are using ‘coerced abortion’ to advance anti-choice policies.

Kansas lawmakers, for example, made it a felony to ‘coerce’ someone into abortion—with language so broad that something as simple as divorce could be seen as “financial coercion.” Conservatives are also using the talking point to attack simple efforts around abortion accessibility. Here’s how Erik Baptist, an attorney with the anti-abortion powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, blasted a Planned Parenthood app that helps users seeking abortion medication:

“…Planned Parenthood’s app increases the risks of coercion or abuse. The FDA’s decision to remove in-person dispensing already created conditions conducive to procuring abortions for women suffering from abuse or trafficking…The app user could be a trafficker, an ex-boyfriend, or anyone seeking to obtain abortion drugs to slip into an unsuspecting pregnant woman’s drink.”

Baptist is one of the lawyers representing ADF in their anti-mifepristone Supreme Court case; in other words, we should be paying close attention to the kind of arguments he makes. And with anti-abortion studies on mifepristone being retracted left and right, conservatives may be looking to pivot from their (bad, false) science. I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘abortion coercion’ became much more central to their strategy on banning the medication—not just in legislation, but the courts.

In the States

We know why anti-choice activists are targeting abortion medication: a #WeCount study shows that 8,000 women a month in anti-abortion states are obtaining the pills from shield state providers. And in Florida, where a 6-week ban went into effect this month, abortion clinic directors and staff tell The Washington Post that many women are choosing to order the medication rather than leave the state for care.

Eileen Diamond, director of a Fort Lauderdale clinic, told the Post that patients early in their pregnancy are are in “disbelief” that that they have to travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion. “It’s very daunting for them…we are seeing a lot of patients turning to finding alternate ways to get pills by mail,” she said.

Middlebury College economics professor Caitlin Myers, who does vital research on abortion access, says that “telehealth is really a game changer for abortion access.” Myers has also said—and this is important—that abortion medication and telehealth is far from a cure-all. People will always need procedural abortions.

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill allowing Arizona abortion providers to practice in his state. But providers say that the law isn’t necessary all that helpful. Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick told radio station KJZZ, “Arizona abortion providers are too busy providing care here.” And a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona said, “It is an unreasonable expectation for our politicians and judges to ask Arizonans to travel to California to provide or receive basic health care.”

The legislation was passed in response Arizona’s 1864 abortion ban, which has since been repealed. (We’re still waiting to find out if the ban will go into effect at all before the repeal takes effect.)

---

If you missed my explainer on Louisiana’s new law classifying abortion medication as a controlled substance, check it out below:

All About Louisiana

---

Meanwhile, Virginia’s presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Abigail Spanberger, said on MSNBC that she would sign legislation guaranteeing the right to contraception. This comes after Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed the Right to Contraception Act earlier this month. (More on this tomorrow, but recently Republicans are getting even more explicit about their opposition to birth control.)

You all know I’ve been paying close attention to the Republican attacks on data and privacy, so I was glad to see that the New Hampshire House rejected a bill that would have required abortion providers to report patient information to the state. The legislation mandated that doctors tell the state where, when and how they ended a pregnancy, along with demographic information about their patients. And in language that got an immediate side-eye from me, doctors wouldn’t be required to identify their patients, but they wouldn’t have been prohibited from doing so if they wanted. Hmm.

Quick hits:

• Maryland voters aren’t buying former governor Larry Hogan’s switch-up on abortion rights;

• More on the increased abortion and maternal health protections advancing in Illinois;

• And a reminder that Tennessee voters oppose the state’s abortion ban.

In the Nation

The Biden Administration is trying to make it easier for patients who were denied emergency abortions to make a complaint. The federal government has launched a new website for those who believe their rights have been violated under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The new web-portal also directs users to a page where they can learn more about the EMTALA.

Remember, the EMTALA is the federal law that requires hospital emergency rooms to provide patients with life-saving and stabilizing care—even abortions. It was just argued in front of the Supreme Court, with anti-abortion groups fighting for states’ right to deny women live-saving abortions.

The GOP is still struggling to find a winning post-Roe message, and they think that IVF could be the answer. I reported last week on Republicans’ bullshit IVF ‘protection’ bill—legislation that would actually allow states to restrict the fertility treatment. Proposed by Sens. Katie Britt and Ted Cruz, the bill is just a PR tool, launched in a moment when voters are furious over the attacks on reproductive rights. (Especially after the Alabama Supreme Court decision that ruled frozen embryos were fetuses.)

Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth has also proposed legislation to protect IVF, but in her case the bill would actually help. CBS News reported on the dueling bills, pointing out something that I flagged in my piece last week—that the definition of IVF in Republicans’ legislation is deliberately simplistic and narrow:

“Barbara Collura, the CEO of Resolve: The National Infertility Association, said that under the bill, states could still pursue a number of avenues to regulate IVF, like banning genetic testing on embryos, limiting the number of embryos created, or prohibiting the cryopreservation or freezing of embryos, which she said ‘would make delivering care very difficult,’ while avoiding losing federal funding.

‘So it's very clever,’ said Collura, whose organization helped draft the Democratic IVF legislation, said. ‘Legislators can say very truthfully, 'hey, we did not outlaw IVF.’’”

Speaking of GOP extremism, Republicans have been absolutely furious over guidance from the EEOC that made clear the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires employers to give workers time off for abortion care.

Nineteen Republican Attorneys General have challenged the rule, as has the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other Catholic institutions. But remember, we’re not talking about a mandate for paid time off, just the ability to get care and recover! What also makes this so gross is that they’re fine with paid time off for ‘medically necessary’ abortions—but how in the world is an employee meant to prove that their abortion wasn’t ‘elective’? Are workers supposed to prove to their boss that their abortion was somehow necessary?

In better news, 23 Democratic Attorney Generals have filed an amicus brief in support of the rule, challenging Republicans’ lawsuit and attempts to dismantle the federal mandate. From Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel:

“Removing this rule is just the latest attempt by some to control bodily autonomy and abolish the personal freedom of workers who are trying to make the best decision for themselves and their families.”

Finally, Hillary Clinton says that Democrats didn’t do enough for abortion rights before the end of Roe. In an interview for a new book on abortion from two New York Times reporters, Clinton said, “We didn’t take it seriously, and we didn’t understand the threat.” She says, “We could have done more to fight.” Clinton also said something interesting about the anti-abortion movement:

“One thing I give the right credit for is they never give up. They are relentless. You know, they take a loss, they get back up, they regroup, they raise more money. It’s tremendously impressive the way that they operate.”

If you’ve ever spoken to me about Abortion, Every Day, you know that I use the word ‘relentless’ a lot. There’s a reason that I’m obsessive about the newsletter, and why I’m intent on not missing a single thing: I truly believe that’s the only way we win. When it comes to the anti-abortion movement, though, I don’t think what makes them so effective is their relentlessness—but their shamelessness. They’re willing to say and do anything. Our side, correctly, is still beholden to the truth.

Quick hits:

• Business Insider reports that some women are stockpiling abortion medication;

• ABC News on how Donald Trump’s potential vice presidential picks are modifying their abortion stance to align with the disgraced former president;

• And Vox has an explainer on the Comstock Act (you can check out ours here).

Stats & Studies

If you missed the study from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) about how abortion bans impact residency applications, make sure to check it out. The research found that recent medical school graduates were less likely to apply for residencies in anti-abortion states—with the strictest states seeing some of the biggest drop-offs in OBGYN applications, specifically.

In Kentucky, for example, there was a 15% decrease in residency program applicants overall; and executive director of the AAMC Research and Action Institute Atul Grover says that OBGYN programs have seen about a 25% drop over the last three years. In Alabama, there was a 21.2% drop in OBGYN residency applications.

Senate Democrats held a press conference on the crisis last week. From U.S. Sen. Patty Murray:

“It should not be surprising to anyone because after all, why go somewhere politicians and judges can overrule your medical degree and force you to put your patients in harm’s way? Why practice in a state that threatens you with the loss of your license, heavy fines and even prison time if you dare to help the patient get the abortion care that they need?”

You Love to See It

Well this is cool! The First Unitarian Church of Dallas has opened a pro-choice ‘pregnancy center’—a direct response to the anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that litter the country and lie to women.

Truth Pregnancy Resource Center was created to provide “accurate and non-coercive pregnancy-related services,” including information for patients on how to obtain abortion out-of-state. Rev. Deneen Robinson told The Dallas Morning News that the center will help regardless of how someone plans to move forward with their pregnancy:

“What we are looking to live out here is that reproductive health care is a continuum. It’s not just abortion. It’s not just adoption. It’s not just parenting. But all those things are actually linked in some way because they start with a person who is having to make a reproductive health care decision, and they may need some support in doing that.”

I couldn’t love this more.