Idaho Argues Women Will "Step on Rusty Nails" to Get Abortions

11.19.24

Click to skip ahead: In Better News, Wyoming’s abortion bans have been struck down! In the States, news out of Idaho, Mississippi, Oregon and New York. Ballot Measures has more on split votes and the anti-abortion trickery in Nebraska. In the Nation, Matt Gaetz, buffer zones, and increased orders of abortion meds. In Look Local, a reminder that antis are doing a lot of their work on the community level (and we should too). Stats & Studies with a segment on the increase in pregnancy-related arrests. Finally, Anti-Abortion Strategy looks at the slow roll towards fetal personhood.

---

In Better News

"Let’s start with the great news out of Wyoming: A judge has permanently struck down the state’s abortion bans, ruling that they violate Wyoming’s constitution. While the fight isn’t quite over, I couldn’t be more thrilled for the abortion rights activists and doctors who worked so hard to make this happen.

Judge Melissa Owens, who had previously issued a temporary injunction on two laws, ruled that the abortion ban and ban on abortion medication "impede the fundamental right to make health care decisions for an entire class of people, pregnant women.”

The state, of course, is expected to appeal; and the case will likely go to the Wyoming Supreme Court. But in the meantime, OBGYN Giovannina Anthony—one of the plaintiffs in the case—tells me it’s "an amazing day for women’s reproductive rights.”

"The judge’s ruling is crystal clear: pregnant women have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy and to make their own healthcare decisions without interference by the state.”

It’s that aspect of the ruling I want to hone in on for a moment, because it speaks to a broader issue we’re going to be hearing a lot more about in the coming months—abortion as healthcare.

One of the plaintiffs’ arguments was that Wyoming’s bans violated the state’s constitutional amendment—adopted by voters in 2012—that guarantees the right to make your own health care decisions. The state however, argued that abortion isn’t healthcare because "it’s not restoring the woman’s body from pain, physical disease or sickness.”

As such, Owens dedicated several pages in her ruling on the definition of 'health care,’ pointing out that the term doesn’t just include medical services for sick individuals—but for well ones, too.

I flag this because I’ve noticed an increase in anti-abortion groups and legislators saying that 'pregnancy is not a disease.’ They’re playing down just how dangerous it is for women to be pregnant—especially in America. It’s also part of a broader movement to divorce abortion from healthcare. (I mean really, it was just last week that I reported how anti-abortion activists are calling life-saving abortions 'elective’!)

All of which is to say: keep an eye out for this messaging.

In some other positive news today, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek announced that the state has stockpiled more mifepristone. The previous stockpile of the abortion medication is set to expire in September 2025; this batch will last just about to the end of the Trump administration, September 2028.

Citing the election specifically, Kotek gave a statement that made me wonder if she’s ready to distribute abortion medication even if Trump passes a national ban:

"I believe in reproductive freedom and am committed to being a fierce advocate for every person’s access to safe reproductive health care services, no matter the national landscape. Oregon is not immune from federal attacks on our reproductive rights. In our state, patients will continue to access the medication they need and providers will deliver these critical services without fear or harassment.”

I mean, maybe I’m reading into this too much. But it’s interesting to me that Kotek says she’s going to make sure people get the medication they need "no matter the national landscape.” I sure hope that’s the plan—because it’s exactly what we need from pro-choice governors right now. And I’d love for someone to take a step forward and lead.

In the States

The legal challenge against Idaho’s abortion ban is still being heard in court this week. The suit was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) on behalf of four women who were denied abortions despite having nonviable pregnancies. The challenge isn’t seeking to overturn Idaho’s law, but to clarify what the ban’s medical exceptions are.

The women offered wrenching testimony about their experiences last week, while the state attorney responded with what can only be called abject cruelty. James Craig frequently interrupted the women to object, claiming their stories were "irrelevant,” and giving a gory opening statement intended to shame the plaintiffs and shock the court.

What never ceases to amaze me is how little these men think of women—and how openly they’re willing to admit as much. KFF Health News reports, for example, that at one point Craig even suggested that a woman might step on a rusty nail in order to claim she had an infection and needed an abortion. He said if the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, "women [would] have a right to kill their unborn baby anytime it's disabled, anytime they have an infection.” The disdain for women just drips from every word.

Idaho doctors also testified last week, sharing how the law impacts their ability to provide adequate care to patients and their own lives. Dr. Nichole Aker, for example, became emotional while testifying:

"One of the things I love most about my job is delivering babies and helping families grow. But I think about my own kids, and I think about the risk that I'm putting them in by continuing to do what I do, and I wonder if it's worth it.”

Remember, Idaho has lost nearly a quarter of its OBYNS and more than half of its maternal fetal medicine specialists since Roe was overturned. As a result, multiple hospitals have shuttered their maternity wards and maternal health deserts have expanded—leaving some women having to drive hours to get to a hospital where they can deliver a baby.

Not all doctors are worried about the health and wellbeing of their patients, however; consider the notorious assholes at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). This week, the extremists who claim abortion is never necessary to save someone’s health or life are asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to reverse a 1998 ruling that says the state constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.

Obviously, the state has an abortion ban—a trigger law that went into effect after Roe was overturned. Mississippi also has no abortion clinics. But AAPLOG apparently wants to be doubly sure that women are forced into pregnancy. A ruling from a lower court found that the group didn’t have standing to bring the suit, so we’ll see if that holds.

Finally, Gothamist has a good reminder today that pro-choice states and cities are also suffering in the wake of Roe’s demise: They report that Planned Parenthood in New York City is having major financial difficulties, shutting down clinics and preparing for funding cuts under a new Trump administration.

This comes just a few months after Planned Parenthood of Greater New York announced that they’d no longer be offering abortions after 20 weeks, because they could no longer afford "deep sedation” anesthesia for patients.

Demand for abortion in New York has increased 50% since the end of Roe, and abortion providers lost millions in federal family planning dollars when Trump took office the last time. They’re expecting much the same this time around. What’s more, both Planned Parenthood and New York Abortion Access Fund (NYAAF) report that they’ve seen donations drop off significantly. (Gothamist reports that the fund went from supporting about 400 patients in 2020 to more than 2,500 people last year.)

NYAAF executive director Chelsea Williams-Diggs says, "We are holding on strong for now, or relatively strong, and we’re able to support folks. But, again, the future is uncertain.”

Quick hits:

• More on the ruling out of Montana that blocks onerous licensing requirements for abortion clinics and allows providers to keep their doors open;

• Reason has more on the Texas bill that would ban pro-choice websites;

• Salon on Maryland’s move to train more abortion providers;

• And demand for abortion medication and contraception has spiked even in pro-choice states like Illinois.

Ballot Measures

As I wrote yesterday, we’re getting more and more information about Nebraska voters being tricked into codifying an anti-abortion amendment. Remember, there were two abortion measures on the ballot: one to protect abortion, and another that put a 12 week ban into the state constitution. But anti-abortion activists co-opted pro-choice language to fool voters into thinking they were supporting abortion rights.

Today, Bloomberg digs deeper into the shockingly dishonest strategy, with reports from "thoroughly confused” voters. Keith Lawrence in Omaha, for example, said, "When I got my ballot, I was so unsure. I had to call my wife and say, 'Which one is it again?’”

As I’ve noted before, we can count on the anti-abortion movement to lean into this kind of confusion whenever possible. They know that Americans overwhelmingly support abortion rights, so if they need to pretend to be pro-choice to win—so be it.

The tactic won’t be limited to ballot measures, either. Earlier this year, crisis pregnancy centers in New York accused Attorney General Letitia James of "denying women the freedom to choose” and “stripping women of…choice” when she stopped the religious groups from lying to women about so-called abortion 'reversal’s. And remember how anti-abortion politicians started calling 12-week bans "plans to keep abortion legal for 12 weeks?” I sure do!

The shamelessness is astounding.

A few more thoughts on ballot measures: Obviously, folks are still thinking a lot about the role that abortion rights ballot measures played in the election, particularly around split votes—the folks who supported both a pro-choice amendment and Donald Trump. Here’s Mini Timmaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All, in POLITICO:

"We started seeing some troubling indicators that in some of these states, the ballot measures were almost creating a permission structure for some folks who were die-hard Republicans but movable on abortion to vote for the ballot measure and then justify voting for Trump.”

Bonyen Lee-Gilmore, vice president of communications at the National Institute of Reproductive Health (NIRH), says something similar:

"It’s time to ask ourselves the hard question of, what role did we play in turning out the Trump vote? We went out and told people that passing ballot measures would protect them…In a way, we gave Republicans a way to absolve their sins.”

Whew. What’s also hard about this is that it’s clear many voters didn’t understand that passing abortion protections in their state constitutions wouldn’t protect them from a federal ban. It may seem obvious to some that national law trumps state law—but that’s not the case for everyone, and a lot of voters believed that by supporting a ballot measure they were inoculating themselves from federal legislation.

In the Nation

Two women testified that Attorney General-elect Matt Gaetz paid them to have sex and that they saw the Florida congressman have sex with an underage girl. Will any of it matter? I just don’t know anymore! All I know is that I’m tired of sexual predators being elevated to the highest echelons of power in this country. Even the tiniest break would be nice.

I told you yesterday about the anti-abortion strategy to do away with abortion clinic buffer zones, and conservatives’ push to get a case in front of the Supreme Court. Their hope is that the Court will overturn Hill v. Colorado, which determined that limiting harassment in front of a clinic isn’t a free speech violation.

Today, the Catholic News Service published a piece about this effort—giving us a glimpse into their thinking. Peter Breen, for example, head of litigation for the Thomas More Society, told CNS that buffer zones are "unconstitutional and overzealous attempt to show favor to abortion businesses at the expense of the free speech rights.” What’s more, the religious publication claims that striking down federal protections for abortion clinics would create "a more level playing field for public discourse on abortion.” You know, the "discourse” where abusive protesters have a First Amendment right to scream in patients’ faces!

It’s no wonder that sales of emergency contraception and abortion medication have skyrocketed. I told you about that spike last week, but I wanted to highlight this piece from The New York Times about the trend. This anecdote in particular, from Beth Ryan of Florida, caught my eye:

"Ms. Ryan, who ordered emergency contraception for her daughter, said she had found herself recalling her experience trying to get a birth control prescription filled at a pharmacy at age 18. She said the pharmacist, 'this old white man, told me that I shouldn’t be on birth control because it was a sin and against his religion and I needed to get married.’ She said she worries that kind of attitude toward reproductive health could become prevalent again now, and in the wake of the election results, 'I don’t feel like it’s that far-fetched.’”

It’s not far-fetched at all—because it’s already happening. And with the Trump administration eager to expand 'conscience clause’ mandates allowing health care providers and pharmacists to deny women medication, I expect we’ll see a whole lot more of it.

“And so I call all of you…to work toward a society where compelling people to give birth, where punishing people for pregnancy, criminalizing pregnancy, where forced family separation as a means of meeting human needs would be unimaginable.” - Dorothy Roberts, author of Killing the Black Body, in a lecture at Harvard Law School.

Look Local

Abortion rights remain more popular than ever, even after the election. That’s why I expect to see a surge in anti-abortion activism at the local level. With so many people watching what Donald Trump will do on abortion, it’s a way for conservatives to avoid those national prying eyes.

After all, local communities have always been the focus of anti-abortion groups’ most extreme tactics—whether it’s travel ban ordinances or crisis pregnancy centers spreading lies about birth control. So I wouldn’t be surprised if these efforts escalate. As an anti-abortion columnist wrote at USA Today this week, "our efforts are best focused at the local and state levels, where change remains realistic and the debate is currently happening.”

The kinds of things to watch out for: more funding for crisis pregnancy centers shrouded as investments in “women and families;” anti-abortion indoctrination in schools disguised as “human and fetal development” curricula; and attacks on funding for local birth control programs.

The good news is that we also have power to create change on the local level: City councils are stepping up to protect abortion rights—like Austin, Texas, which allocated $100,000 to Jane’s Due Process, a group that helps teens get out-of-state abortions. And who could forget election night in Amarillo, where local activists defeated an anti-abortion ordinance backed by some of the most powerful conservative groups in the country?

That’s why it’s crucial to keep our community organizations and abortion funds well-resourced. The fight is at the local level, and we need to ensure our fighters stay strong.

Stats & Studies

Remember the incredible report from Pregnancy Justice showing that over 200 people have faced pregnancy-related criminal charges since Roe was overturned? Well, PBS NewsHour dedicated a segment to the report and the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes more generally. It’s definitely worth a watch, though you will have to stomach listening to a South Carolina Republican representative explain that arresting pregnant women for alleged marijuana use is just about using "the carrot and the stick.”

Anti-Abortion Strategy

I saved the worst for last! To no one’s surprise, anti-abortion groups are feeling more emboldened then ever. They’re making big plans for Trump’s presidency, with a particular focus on attacking abortion medication. (Of course.) If you’re a new subscriber and want an idea of what kinds of arguments you can expect to see, check out my explainer of conservatives’ latest lawsuit:

The GOP's Attack on Abortion Pills is Here

The other tactic I’m paying close attention to is the way that anti-abortion activists—who know that Americans overwhelmingly want abortion to be legal—are trying to hide the fact that they’re pushing for total abortion bans. Carter Sherman at The Guardian, for example, got ahold of a strategy memo from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. In it, president Marjorie Dannenfelser let this drop:

"In order to go on offense and truly defeat the abortion industry in the long term, we must strengthen the pro-life, pro-woman, pro-family resolve of the Republican Party, centered on the unalienable right to life for the unborn child that exists under the 14th Amendment.”

The 14th Amendment is code for fetal personhood—a way for the anti-abortion movement to claim that embryos, fetuses and fertilized eggs deserve equal protection under the law. It’s how they snuck a call for constitutional personhood into the GOP platform!

I’ll have more on this and 'equal protection’ soon, but in the meantime consider it a reminder that language matters.