Missouri's Abortion Ban Blocked - But Clinics Still Can't Open
12.20.24
Click to skip ahead: In Hell Yeah Missouri, a judge has blocked the state’s abortion ban! Keep An Eye On what Missouri anti-abortion activists will do next. In the Nation, more on RFK Jr.’s plans for abortion medication. Normalizing Extremism looks at the relative silence on South Carolina’s abortion/death penalty bill. In Redefining Abortion, conservatives’ war on language is ramping up. In the Courts, the troubling attacks on buffer zones. Finally, In Better News, Arizona Dems want to do away with abortion reporting.
Missouri blocks some restrictions
UPDATE/CORRECTION: The restrictions blocked by Judge Jerri Zhang are not enough for Planned Parenthood to reopen clinics. On Friday night, a statement went out from Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Planned Parenthood Great Rivers and the ACLU of Missouri about how the state’s clinics are still unlicensed.
“As a result of today’s mixed decision. Missourians continue to be deprived of time-sensitive, essential, and constitutionally protected health care, despite voting in favor of a constitutional right to abortion.”
I’ll have a fuller breakdown of the decision in the next issue, but in the meantime I wanted to share this reel from Bonyen at NIRH (which is a great org you should all be following) and apologize for the error. I should have done better.
I am thrilled to be able to report that a judge has temporarily struck down Missouri’s total abortion ban! Judge Jerri Zhang also blocked a good deal of the state’s abortion restrictions and TRAP laws.
Zhang ruled today that the state’s ban is at odds with the newly adopted Amendment 3, which protects abortion rights in the state constitution. While this is a temporary block until the legal battle fully plays out, the injunction is a sign that Zhang will permanently strike down the law. (I mean, even Missouri maniacally anti-abortion attorney general Andrew Bailey has said it’s unconstitutional!)
There’s something incredibly satisfying about reading through the list of other now-blocked restrictions, so I’m going to tell you each one. I’m thinking of it as an early Christmas present. In addition to striking down a 72-hour waiting period, Zhang also blocked:
An “informed consent” mandate requiring patients to read this bullshit booklet that tells them they’re terminating “a separate, unique, living human being” and that fetuses feel pain.
A mandate that patients take abortion medication in the presence of a doctor (essentially a ban on telehealth)
A requirement that fetal tissue be given to a pathologist for review (!!!)
A mandate that providers have an abortion medication ‘complication plan’ in place
And a requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a hospital (here’s an older article I wrote for The Guardian explaining why this particular mandate is so bogus)
She did keep a few TRAP laws, though—like a requirement that patients have their pregnancy’s gestational age confirmed in person before being prescribed abortion medication. Zhang also kept a law in place that mandates abortion clinics be licensed by the state. As The Kansas City Star points out, that hurdle could be a big one because it gives the Republican-run state the power to deny licenses.
Today’s ruling comes after Missouri pro-choice activists fought a long and difficult battle to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, going head-to-head with Republican state leaders. In the lead-up to the election, we saw Missouri top election officials try to quash the will of voters again and again: whether it was holding up the signature-gathering process, biased ballot summaries, or last minute lawsuits to keep the amendment off the ballot.
So in a moment when politics can make you feel pretty powerless, let this be a reminder that we can still get shit done. Amendment 3 isn’t perfect, and there’s still work to do. But yesterday the people of Missouri didn’t have access to any abortion and today they do.
For more on Amendment 3, read Abortion, Every Day’s coverage below:
Keep An Eye On
Sadly, Missouri anti-abortion activists aren’t just going to take the loss and move on. Republicans in the state, for example, are already proposing another ballot measure to undo Amendment 3 and enshrine fetal personhood. But what I’m really worried about is what happens at and in front of abortion clinics now that these maniacs have lost their total ban.
As I was tracking anti-abortion media today, I noticed a whole lot more chatter about the importance of clinic harassment—or, as they would put it, “sidewalk counselors.”
Coalition Life Executive Director Brian Westbrook in Missouri, for example, told Life News that his army of assholes are planning to ramp up their work outside of clinics.
“Our sidewalk counselors are often the last lifeline for women seeking help, and as states fight in the legislature and the courts over which laws will take effect, sidewalk counselors remain the only lifeline for women who have fallen through the safety net and arrived at the gates of an abortion facility with nowhere to turn. We are committed to continuing our efforts to empower women with life-affirming options…”
The phrase ‘empowering women’ makes me nauseated, honestly. Just call us sluts and murderers and be done with it already—the farce is too much to take.
In all seriousness, this is something we should be thinking about not just in Missouri—but any states where abortion restrictions are being weakened or struck down. The activists in these places are likely to be pretty pissed off and looking for a place to direct that anger and disappointment.
Perhaps this is a bad comparison, but it’s the thought that keeps crossing my mind: Abusers are at their most dangerous when you leave.
“Doctors need to consider whether abiding by [abortion bans] at all is truly morally justifiable. Laws that force doctors to violate medical ethics are unjust and should not be obeyed.”
- Lily Sánchez, Current Affairs
In the Nation
I told you earlier this week that Sen. Josh Hawley went on a Twitter tear about how RFK Jr. promised to “reinstate President Trump’s pro-life policies at HHS.” Hawley said that Kennedy agreed to ban Title X funds for abortion, reinstate ‘conscience protections’ and more.
Today, Jezebel points out that those weren’t the only promises Hawley said Kennedy made. Reporter Kylie Cheung notes that at a press briefing, Hawley said, “It would be a wise idea to return to the rule under the last Trump administration, which required in-person dispensing” of abortion medication. He also said that Kennedy “seemed to understand it.”
Remember, Hawley is the husband of Alliance Defending freedom attorney, Erin Hawley, who has argued against mifepristone in front of the Supreme Court. And if the Hawleys can’t completely repeal access to abortion medication using the Comstock Act or the FDA, they’re going to try to reverse Biden-era protections—like access via telemedicine.
To fully understand the attacks on mifepristone, make sure to check out my breakdown of Republicans revived lawsuit against the FDA. Pretty much every tactic they’re considering has been shoved into that one brief.
Trusted sources for abortion medication Aid Access, Plan C Pills, Abortion Finder, I Need An A
Also in national news, don’t miss this piece at The Nation from Rachel Rebouché. The Temple University dean and law professor flags something really important in her piece about the abortion training crisis:
“In instances in which patients are harmed, this country’s medical malpractice system, which holds providers liable for treatment below the standard of care, will not have changed along with deficits in training. In other words, physicians who do not use reasonable care can be sued for negligence, regardless of what training they received. The pressure of civil liability combined with the threat of prosecution will make doctors with reservations about their skill level completely (and perhaps justifiably) resistant to offering care.”
In other words, in a country where doctors are not being adequately trained in abortion procedures—but will still be held liable when they do—it’s not a jump to predict that these physicians may not be super eager to perform said abortions. (Even when desperately needed.)
Quick hits:
MSNBC shares the audio of Trump appointee Ed Martin talking about jailing women for abortion and eradicating ‘exceptions’ for women’s lives;
The Center for Reproductive Rights has released an end-of-year legislative wrap-up;
KFF breaks down potential attacks on abortion rights under the Trump administration;
And in international news, an international human rights court has ruled against El Salvador after a woman was denied an abortion for a high-risk pregnancy.
Normalizing Extremism
It’s been ten days since I broke the news that South Carolina Republicans had reintroduced a bill that would make abortion punishable by the death penalty. Since then, a handful of local outlets published stories about the legislation and—as far as I can tell—only two national outlets have covered the news.
Is that how little women rate? That a move to codify killing abortion patients doesn’t warrant a mention in the nation’s top publications? This is how normalization happens. Republicans are reintroducing legislation like this again and again in the hopes that our outrage will wane over time. But without media coverage, conservatives don’t even have to worry about our outrage to begin with!
I imagine if you asked reporters why they haven’t written about South Carolina’s bill, they’d say because there’s no way it’s going anywhere. Why write about a bill that has no chance of passing? But it’s vital that we’re not dismissing legislation like this as outliers—or the lawmakers who introduce it as lone extremists.
Every bill Republicans propose is a roadmap for the future they want—a future that’s hell-bent on punishment. Not to mention, this isn’t only happening in South Carolina! Bills, policies and platforms like this are popping up everywhere. To find them, just keep your eyes open for anything that talks about “equal protection.”
For more about ‘equal protection’ and the Republicans’ barely-shrouded extremism:
Redefining Abortion
I’ve been warning about Republicans trying to redefine abortion pretty much since I started Abortion, Every Day: I’ve tracked it here, wrote about in my book, and even flagged in The New York Times. Their plan is to take abortion—which is a medical intervention—and turn it into an intention.1
Under their definition, treatments for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages wouldn’t qualify as abortions, nor would ending a pregnancy to save someone’s life. (In 2022, the president of Americans United for Life even suggested that giving a 10-year old an abortion wouldn’t really be an abortion.)
The goal here, as I’ve repeated so many times, is to divorce abortion from healthcare; to make it something distinct, devious and shameful. That’s why they’ve been trying to make ‘maternal fetal separation’ happen—a non-medical term invented by anti-abortion activists to lend credibility to their lies.
Now, conservatives have largely been embedding these false definitions in policy, hoping that no one is paying attention to nitty gritty legislative language. But they’ve also been slowly introducing the lie into culture as well, in an attempt to confuse Americans about what abortion really means.
There’s no better proof of how that cultural campaign is ramping up than this column at the Wall Street Journal, which declares “medical authorities are reclassifying life-saving procedures to make a political statement.” That’s right—doctors are just trying to be ‘political’ when they call abortion ‘abortion.’
Penned by Rachel Roth Aldhizer—who appears to have no medical expertise—makes the same claims we’ve seen from other anti-abortion radicals: That women don’t really need abortions when their life is at risk, that they can just be induced into labor, and that saving a woman’s life isn’t really an abortion anyway. Most incredibly, she accuses abortion rights activists of playing “linguistic games.” (Us?!)
“By their standard, many treatments for pregnancy complications are now considered abortions, from removing ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage management to induction of labor for PPROM. In other words, prenatal care is complete only with abortion in the toolbox. But it is intent, not simply a procedure, that makes something an abortion.”
There it is: abortion isn’t a medical intervention, but an intent—a feeling! And while I know WSJ is a conservative-leaning publication, it’s incredibly troubling to see this clear-cut lie published in a national outlet. Especially because Roth Aldhizer isn’t an expert—just an extremist.
Do you want to know who this woman is who got column inches in one of the country’s most prestigious newspapers? A person who this time last year accused Kate Cox—a woman forced to leave Texas to end a nonviable pregnancy—of killing her ‘disabled child.’ From Roth Aldhizer last year:
“Ms. Cox needs to understand that motherhood is not signing up for just the good stuff—kids that get straight A’s, play sports, paint pictures for the fridge, and make us proud because of their accomplishments. Motherhood goes much deeper. Are you willing to give your time, resources, and comfort for the sake of another? If not, don’t seek motherhood.”
Is this person we want defining what is and isn’t an abortion? Is this the person that the Wall Street Journal thinks should decide?
In the Courts
Well I don’t like this one bit. If you’re a regular reader, you know that anti-abortion politicians and activists have been trying to do away with buffer zones outside of clinics—arguing that they infringe on the free speech rights of those who want to scream in women’s faces.
Since Roe was overturned, we’ve seen multiple lawsuits brought against various cities and ordinances, all in an effort to get buffer zones in front of the Supreme Court.
These attacks aren’t just happening in anti-abortion states, either. The Associated Press reports today that Minneapolis, Minnesota has “softened” a buffer zone ordinance after anti-abortion activists sued on First Amendment grounds:
“The City Council this month quietly amended the ordinance to exclude constitutionally protected activities and agreed to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees. Brian Gibson, chief executive officer of Pro-Life Action Ministries, said in an interview Friday that it amounted to an admission by the city that the law violated the freedom of speech. ‘They were accepting fault for having violated our constitutional rights,’ Gibson said.”
Like I said: I don’t like it at all. And while I won’t claim to be an expert in city politics, it’s disappointing to see them give up quite this easily. Especially knowing that attacking buffer zones is such a tremendous part of anti-abortion strategy. (As is ramping up harassment outside of clinics, as I noted earlier.)
The city council's vice president says Minneapolis’ ordinance is still consistent with the FACE Act—the federal law that prohibits people from blocking entrances to reproductive health clinics. But just so you know: Republicans are going after that one, too.
In Better News
Just a bit of quick news out of Arizona, where Democrats are proposing legislation to do away with a state law requiring an annual abortion report. You all know data and reporting on abortion is a major conservative tactic—I just wrote a few days ago about the role it’s playing in state legislation, for example.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs correctly says the reporting infringes on patients’ privacy. (After all, do we require reporting on any other kind of surgery?) From Hobbs:
“The government has no place in surveilling Arizonans’ medical decision-making or tracking their health history. Starting a family is a sensitive and personal experience for a woman and her loved ones; there should be no room for government surveillance and publication of that decision.”
For as much as Republicans want to pretend that their abortion reporting efforts are about ‘protecting’ women, we know what the real goal is: a chilling effect, data manipulation, and a strategy to punish providers.
Anti-abortion activists and politicians want to intimidate patients out of getting abortions, knowing that women will be less likely to seek care if they think their procedures will be reported to the state. As we’ve seen in states like Texas, reporting can also be manipulated to make abortion seem dangerous despite all evidence to the contrary. Finally, Republicans think that if they can collect enough information on abortions that they’ll be able to find something to use to target clinics and providers. (Remember this out of Indiana?)
All of which is to say: Good for Arizona. I hope other states do the same.
But how do you define an intention? If someone considered abortion at the start of their pregnancy, changed their mind, but later had a stillbirth—could they be investigated for abortion because perhaps they intended to lose that pregnancy? If you have a pregnancy that could result in the loss of a limb or organ but not your life—would ending that pregnancy be an abortion or not? The whole idea is ridiculous.
Screaming "Don't kill your baby", shoving your face within inches of a woman's face isn't counting. It's intimidation and harassment.
I'm so proud of all of us fighting here in MO! We're not done yet! Check out Action Abortion MO and donate, volunteer, etc! Anything helps! If you're in the area and want to join a meeting, head to their website, Instagram, etc to see what's up! Let's do this