Conservatives: Not Executing Women Is "Toxic Empathy"

6.15.26

Click to skip ahead: Louisiana Father Arrested for Giving Teen Abortion Pills; Wyoming Abortion Bans Struck Down (Again); In the States: Alaska, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona & More; Texas GOP Refuses to Change Plank on Punishing Abortion Patients; Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Abortion ‘Free Speech’ Case; In My Tabs: Clinic Escorts, Teen Access & More; Strategy Watch: Conservatives Say Abortion Pills Violate Dobbs

---

Louisiana Father Arrested for Giving Teen Abortion Pills

A Louisiana man has been charged with domestic abuse and first degree feticide, accused of giving his teen daughter abortion pills without her consent.

Until we learn more information, I’m going to urge us to take the same patient and skeptical approach we do with pregnancy criminalization cases. Because the only information we have right now is from police reports—and we all know you can’t trust what cops say (especially when it comes to arrests like these).

Is it possible that this man surreptitiously or forcibly made his 17-year-old take abortion medication? Absolutely. But here’s the problem: because Republicans and anti-abortion activists have been conflating anything having to do with abortion pills with force and ‘coercion’, they’re muddying the waters and making actual abuse harder to identify.

That’s especially true in Louisiana, where the state has a history of arresting the parents of teens who’ve ended their pregnancies. Remember, there’s a mother awaiting trial in the state right now on criminal abortion charges—accused by prosecutors and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill of “coercing” her daughter into ending her pregnancy.

But there’s a reason the state didn’t charge the mom with coercion. In that case, ‘coercion’ is just a convenient talking point for politicians who want to distract voters from the fact that they’ve jailed a mother who helped her daughter get an abortion.

So when I see that AG Murrill is already tweeting about this latest story—and when I see that Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is already blasting this man’s mugshot under the headline “Kill Pill Predator Alert”—it gives me huge pause.

That’s why I’m not linking to any media reports or naming the man until I can confirm the story myself.

In the meantime, consider this another reminder that conservatives’ obsession with characterizing abortion pills as inherently abusive is dangerous. By labeling all abortions as coercion, it’s that much harder to identify—and help—victims.

Wyoming Abortion Bans Struck Down (Again)

Let’s change gears to some good news—great news, even! A judge has struck down three anti-abortion laws in Wyoming: a waiting period and ultrasound mandate specific to abortion pills; a TRAP law that would force clinics to operate as ambulatory centers; and a law that excluded abortion pills from a law allowing providers to prescribe off-label medication.

Judge Thomas T. C. Campbell wrote that not only does Wyoming’s constitution protect people’s right to make their own healthcare decisions—the state simply didn’t prove these restrictive laws were necessary.

For example, Republicans claim that abortion pill patients need an ultrasound to protect them from undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies, but all evidence shows that ultrasounds don’t actually lessen that risk. Campbell also pointed out that data from the state health department showed “zero complications or deaths resulting from abortion in Wyoming.”

This is terrific news, and a real credit to the abortion rights activists in Wyoming who’ve been working overtime to push back on the constant Republican attacks. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that Gov. Mark Gordon signed a 6-week abortion ban into law, even though the state Supreme Court had just ruled abortion is protected healthcare!

That law is currently blocked while its being battled out in court, but it’s yet another example of how much taxpayer time, energy, and money Republicans are willing to waste to pass laws that no one wants.

In the States: Alaska, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona & More

Let’s start with Alaska, where Planned Parenthood is suing to overturn a state ban on telemedicine abortion. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaiʻi, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky (PPGNHAIK) argues that Alaska’s law—which bans telehealth prescriptions for abortion pills—violates the right to privacy and equal protection under the Alaska constitution.

After all, other court rulings have confirmed that Alaska guarantees the right to abortion, and state residents can get all sorts of medication via telehealth—just not abortion pills. What’s more, because so many Alaskans live in rural areas, a telehealth ban can function as an informal total ban. From the complaint:

“The State forces all Alaskans seeking a medication abortion to travel—in some instances more than 700 miles—to a health center in Anchorage or Fairbanks to seek care. It is well-documented that such travel distances often delay, and sometimes prevent, patients from accessing abortion care.”

Gotta say, I’m loving PPGNHAIK lately: just a few weeks ago, they became the first Planned Parenthood affiliate to offer advanced provision abortion medication.

I’ll keep you updated while the case makes its way through the courts. In the meantime, read their complaint here.

Love this: students at Duke University in North Carolina have successfully fought for a health insurance plan that includes abortion coverage! When the school changed their health plan last month, students noticed that they’d only be covered for abortion care if they were victims of sexual violence—or if pregnancy “places the woman’s life in serious danger.” After a sustained outcry and petitioning, the school changed the policy to cover 80% of the cost of an abortion.

Amazing work by activists and student leaders. A question, though: if an insurance plan only covers abortion in cases of sexual violence, how in the world does a patient prove that? Do they need to report their rape to the police? Attach the police report to their medical claim? That’s pretty fucking dystopian.

Ohio doctors appeared in front of a state Senate committee last week to oppose a Republican bill requiring a 24-hour waiting period before abortions. As you may remember, HB 347 is just one of many attempts by Ohio Republicans to undercut the constitutional abortion protections voters put in place in 2023.

If conservatives can’t ban abortion outright, they’ll just try to make it as difficult as possible to obtain. As Dr. Elise Berlan told the Ohio Senate Health Committee:

“Requiring physicians who perform abortions to do this, without similar requirements for all other procedures, is discriminatory and frankly, it is patronizing to people seeking abortion that they would need extra rules and time to decide about abortion.”

Thank you. I’m so tired of the conservative argument that women’s little brains need time to process pregnancies and what we want to do. We know!

Finally, Arizona Democrats and reproductive rights activists stood in front of a 20-foot inflatable IUD last week to call out Republicans for blocking contraception protections. For the past three years, the state GOP has shut down any efforts to codify a right to birth control. (It’s something we’ve seen with federal lawmakers, too.)

Kelley Dupps, the director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Arizona, pointed out that access to contraception is a very popular, bipartisan issue:

“So, the question really isn’t, ‘Where do voters stand on this? Where are Arizonans?’ It’s about why are Republican politicians standing in the way of access to basic healthcare rights?”

Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.

Quick hits:

• A column in the Idaho Statesman calls out Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Republican lawmakers for attacking free speech on abortion;

• Anti-abortion activists in Arkansas are calling on the Trump administration to take action on abortion pills;

• And Mayday Health has launched a new set of ads—this time in California laundromats.

Texas GOP Refuses to Change Plank on Punishing Abortion Patients

The Texas Republican Party doubled down on their desire to punish abortion patients this weekend—refusing to change a plank in the party platform that calls for women who end their pregnancies to be punished with life in prison or the death penalty.

We’ve been following this story for a while now; Abortion, Every Day was actually the outlet that broke the news that the GOP had adopted the “equal protection” plank in the first place. Republicans included the language after a major lobbying effort from Abolish Abortion Texas—one of the growing number of extreme ‘abolitionist’ groups desperate to see women punished.

Thanks to reporter Mary Elise O’Bar at The Texan, we learned last week that one of the state’s leading anti-abortion groups, Texas Alliance for Life, was pressing Republicans to change that plank. The group wanted Republicans to adopt new language opposing criminal penalties against abortion patients at the Texas GOP convention this past weekend.

No such luck: according to the ‘abolitionists’ celebrating online, the platform remained unchanged. Ben Zeisloft from the Foundation to Abolish Abortion tweeted, “Texas Republicans have shown that they now see the toxic empathy behind these arguments from groups like [Texas Alliance for Life].”

Apparently not wanting women executed is “toxic empathy” now.

All of this is chilling, but none of it is surprising. After all, AED reported just a few weeks ago that the Texas Republican Party had proudly declared their support for ‘abolitionists’ on social media. Again, this is a group that wants to execute women!

In short? The governing party of the second-largest state in the country is openly calling for abortion patients to be killed or jailed.

Something interesting: the extremists at Abolish Abortion Texas appeared irritated at O’Bar for her coverage characterizing them as a “pro-life” organization. That, I think, we can all agree with: there’s nothing pro-life about these maniacs.

Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Abortion ‘Free Speech’ Case

Some terrific news in the courts today: the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a so-called free speech case brought by anti-abortion activists in Indiana.

This all started in 2021, when a high school student and her parents sued the school district because administrators wouldn’t let her put up specific flyers for an anti-abortion club. (Which just so happened to be a chapter of Students for Life.)

While the teen was allowed to post information about the club’s name, meeting time, and location, she wasn’t able to put up flyers with certain pictures and slogans because of a school policy that prohibited political content. The school later revoked the club’s status because administrators believed it wasn’t really student-driven—but run by the student’s mother.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)—the conservative legal powerhouse that overturned Roe—sued on behalf of the family, and they’ve been making their way through the courts ever since.

While SCOTUS rejected this case, this is unfortunately one of many First Amendment suits that the anti-abortion movement is hoping to get in front of the Court. In addition to arguing that any state regulation of crisis pregnancy centers are discrimination and free speech violations, conservatives are also trying to repeal the case that established buffer zones outside of abortion clinics—effectively arguing it violates clinic harassers’ right to scream in patients faces.

Same energy: National Right to Life is still insisting that a New Jersey bill banning patient harassment—like interference and intimidation—is, you guessed it, a threat to free speech. 🙄

In My Tabs: Clinic Escorts, Teen Access & More

I don’t usually publish a section with recommended reading, but there’s been a spate of terrific pieces on abortion lately. So if you’re looking for a little extra credit reading tonight, start with Adam Serwer’s piece in The Atlantic about Republicans’ attacks on mifepristone—and the very big questions it surfaces around state’s rights:

“Perhaps the last time the country’s federalist system faced this sort of challenge was during the antebellum conflict over slavery. Contemporary shield laws pose similar legal questions to the ‘liberty laws’ of the 19th century, which varied state by state.”

Obviously, as Adam writes, “abortion is not slavery, and abortion is unlikely to provoke another secession crisis,” but the legal parallels are there—and prescient:

“…America won’t be divided between states where abortion is legal and illegal forever. Either we will become all one thing or all the other.”

Make sure to read this one.

Then there’s Sunaya Krishnapura, a pediatrics resident at Stanford who has an important op-ed in STAT about abortion access for minors—an issue far too many Democrats are comfortable throwing under the bus in the name of political expediency.

Krishnapura points out that forced parental involvement has been linked to adverse mental health outcomes, and that multiple studies show parental notification laws don’t increase parental support; they only delay care. In a moment when conservatives are feigning concern for young people in order to push restrictions—and test out radical policies on a vulnerable population—it’s never been more important for us to stand with teenagers.

As Krishnapura writes, “Teens cannot vote, but they deserve a voice. Health care providers like me have a moral obligation to lend ours.”

I also loved this piece from a Wisconsin abortion clinic escort, who laid out exactly what it’s like to come face-to-face with anti-abortion harassers. “Molly,” who didn’t share their full name for obvious reasons, started volunteering as a Planned Parenthood escort after Trump’s first presidential win.

The whole article is worth a read, but I especially appreciate what Molly shared about the futility of trying to change protesters’ minds. Male companions of patients, Molly writes, will sometimes try to reason with the anti-abortion activists outside of clinics. They think if they share the nuances of their partner’s story, those protesters might understand or have empathy:

“If they want to do that, we stand back. It’s not our job as an escort to tell them they’re not allowed to talk or that it’s going to be a fruitless conversation. For example, if a patient is going to die without an abortion for health reasons, the antis outside our clinic would rather you die than have an abortion. Your life is very inconsequential to them…Their personal philosophy is that you should feel lucky to give up your life for the potential of life. That’s how they see women’s bodies.”

It’s an important reminder in a moment when people are obsessed with debating abortion online. What, exactly, do we think we’re accomplishing there?

Finally, Laura O’Connor at The New Republic digs into the connection between fetal personhood and targeting women for substance and alcohol use during pregnancy. Most notably, she reminds readers that while mostly Black and brown women were being policed during the “war on drugs,” there was a telling gap in how much the mainstream feminist movement was paying attention:

“These policies were often ignored or brushed aside by mainstream pro-choice, often white-led organizing groups at the time, without the foresight of recognizing that this very same positioning of fetuses as people would be used to dismantle abortion access in the years to come.”

It makes me think about what attacks people are ignoring now that we’ll look back on as omens. (Cough, trans rights, cough)

“Indigenous people in what is now southern Montana used medicinal plants like calamus and horsetail to end undesirable pregnancies… Enslaved Black women throughout the South notoriously chewed cotton-root bark to end or prevent pregnancies and experience some modicum of dignity in the atrocious system of chattel slavery and forced reproduction.

Abortion has been a part of US history for as long as women have been.”

- Regina Mahone, The Nation

Strategy Watch: Conservatives Say Abortion Pills Violate Dobbs

When the Supreme Court ruled last month that telehealth access to mifepristone could remain as it is, Kylie and I flagged that the dissents from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas laid out a legal roadmap for conservatives going forward. Thomas referenced the Comstock Act, and Alito argued that telemedicine abortion undermines the Court’s decision in Dobbs.

Specifically, he called it “the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs.”

Alito’s prompt has clearly set something off in the anti-abortion movement, because I’m seeing major players test out that argument across conservative media. Most notable? This op-ed in the Washington Examiner from Gabriella McIntyre, an attorney at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)—that’s right, the group that overturned Roe.

In addition to leaning into the lie that abortion pills harm women and enable abusers, the conservative attorney hints at what ADF’s next legal argument against abortion pills will be:

“Let us hope that the next time the High Court does consider this case, these lives, these women, will also be considered, lest the Dobbs promise turn out to be nothing more than a hollow gesture.”

Even her headline echoes Alito: “Dobbs gave states power. Mifepristone took it back.”

What conservatives are really saying here? That only Republican states have the right to pass laws on abortion. And that anti-abortion state sovereignty is more important than the sovereignty of pro-choice states.

As Serwer wrote in the piece I recommended above, “Alito’s reference to those laws as part of a ‘scheme’ to undermine Dobbs is a tell that he believes that New York should be compelled to help enforce Louisiana’s ban on abortion.”