New Hampshire GOP Proposes Travel Ban
12.4.24
Click to skip ahead: In Travel Ban Updates, New Hampshire is proposing an ‘abortion trafficking’ law. In the States, news from California, Missouri, Arizona and New Hampshire. Mortality Crisis looks at the latest in attacks on maternal mortality committees in anti-abortion states. In the Nation, attacks on abortion funds and how Biden should protect providers. Stats & Studies looks at new research—and a new research tool—on crisis pregnancy centers. Finally, Ballot Measures has news from Missouri.
Travel Ban Updates
A New Hampshire Republican has filed an abortion travel ban—though he’s not calling it that. State Rep. Glenn Cordelli’s bill would criminalize the “recruitment, harboring, or transporting” of a minor for abortion care. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the exact same language as the Idaho ‘abortion trafficking’ law that we’ve been talking about this week.
This is why I stressed yesterday how critical the Idaho ruling is for the whole country. Remember, the Ninth Circuit allowed the state to enforce the ‘harboring and transporting’ provisions of the law, but blocked the ‘recruiting’ provision. And while it’s terrible that the decision allowed any of the law to be enforced, there’s no overstating how important it is that a federal court prevented a state from criminalizing speech on abortion.
This ruling has national implications, especially now, as states continue to jump on the abortion travel ban trend—New Hampshire is just the latest example.
That’s because Republicans are all taking cues from each other on abortion rights. Cordelli even repeated a familiar anti-choice talking point: “I view it as more of a parental rights issue, not an abortion issue. A parent has the right to know what’s going on.”
Anti-abortion legislators know that bans and restrictions are incredibly unpopular, so they’re banking on ‘parents’ rights’ to go over better with voters. (That’s why we heard the phrase so much in pro-choice ballot measure fights.)
But make no mistake, what Cordelli is proposing—and what we’re likely to see in other state legislators next year—is a direct attack on free speech and an abortion travel ban targeting minors. So the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on Idaho’s law could be a crucial tool if these bills move forward.
In the States
Speaking of New Hampshire, it turns out that Republicans’ promises in the lead up to the election to leave abortion alone were total bullshit. Shocking, I know!
In addition to Cordelli’s travel ban, Rep. Katy Peternel has submitted an abortion ban but hasn’t provided details yet. (She’s sponsored ‘heartbeat’ bans and a five-week ban in the past, so that should give us a clue.)
And Rep. John Sellers filed a bill “requiring the discussion of abortion procedures and viewing of certain videos during health education in public schools.” We’ve seen this kind of legislation before, and it’s not good. As I’ve warned previously, anti-abortion groups are making major moves when it comes to embedding anti-abortion propaganda in school curricula because they know that young people are the most pro-choice demographic in the country.
A reminder: New Hampshire allows abortion up until 24 weeks, but the Republican stronghold in the legislature and governor’s office means we just might see some of these restrictions go through.
Meanwhile, an Oregon Republican claims that the increase in abortions later in pregnancy is thanks to human trafficking. Yes, seriously. Here’s state Sen. Suzanne Weber in the (conservative) Washington Times:
“We have the I-5 freeway that runs right through here and connects with southern Oregon, where they were especially growing a lot of illegal marijuana, and then we have all of the drugs from Mexico that come right up through that corridor. And human trafficking goes right along with that.”
While I can’t speak to what kind of drug activity is happening in Oregon, I can remind you that I predicted just yesterday that that anti-abortion conspiracy theories around ‘trafficking’ would be on the rise. So keep an eye out.
In better news, a new bill in California wants to make it easier for low-income patients to get hormonal birth control pills at their local pharmacies. The legislation proposed in the state assembly would remove a self-screening requirement for Opill, which doesn’t require a prescription. Basically, it’s a way to have one less hurdle between patients and their birth control.
The legislation comes on the heels of two other bills proposed in California to protect reproductive rights—abortion medication, specifically.
Quick hits: Abortion rights activists and Democratic leaders in Massachusetts are preparing for attacks once Trump takes office; and Texas Right to Life is hitting up conservative media outlets to promote their search for civil cases.
Mortality Crisis
If you read this newsletter, you know that abortion bans are killing women—and that the investigations by outlets like ProPublica are just the tip of the iceberg. We will never hear the vast majority of post-Roe horror stories. That’s why research and data—especially maternal mortality numbers—are so important. Americans deserve to know what bans are doing to women.
But Republicans are desperate to keep us all in the dark. That’s why for the last two plus years, I’ve been tracking how anti-abortion lawmakers and activists are systematically covering up women’s deaths—from the way they’re sowing distrust in credible data to disbanding state committees tasked with reporting on maternal mortality.
Just in the past two weeks, Georgia Republicans fired their entire maternal mortality committee—likely to prevent reporters from uncovering more deaths caused by bans. Meanwhile, Texas’ board announced it won’t examine data from 2022 and 2023, the first two years after the state’s total abortion ban went into effect.
It was Idaho’s committee that was the first to go, though; Republican leadership shut it down in 2023, soon after Dobbs. Thanks in part to the backlash over that decision, the state decided to reassemble the board—but under new oversight.
Read more about how Republicans have planned for women’s deaths below:
Once overseen by the Department of Health and Welfare, it’s now under the Board of Medicine. The reasoning behind the change is unclear, but what is obvious is that state officials are eager to sidestep abortion-related controversy. (Good luck with that!)
As the Idaho Capital Sun highlights, the committee’s website states that its data “will not be used for disciplinary actions by the Board of Medicine.” Similarly, the health department emphasizes that the committee’s purpose is not to assign blame but to “prevent future maternal deaths.”
But how can you prevent future deaths without accountability for the ones happening now—or the ones that already happened? After all, Idaho’s last report in 2021 found that most maternal deaths were preventable.
This kind of wishy-washy language makes me wonder if Idaho’s committee will soft-pedal their findings after examining the 2022 and 2023 data. With the spotlight on maternal mortality committees, I’m sure all of the boards in anti-choice states will tread carefully.
In the meantime, I’m doing some research into the new members of Idaho’s committee. After all, Republicans have taken to placing anti-abortion extremists on mortality boards, and it wasn’t so long ago that Texas Republicans put maniac Ingrid Skop on their committee. I wouldn’t be surprised if Idaho (and other states) followed suit.
Meanwhile, the Dallas Morning News editorial board has called on Texas Republican leadership to study emergency care for pregnant women since their abortion bans went into effect. They argue:
Speaking of Texas, the Dallas Morning News editorial board has called on the state’s Republican leadership to order a study on emergency care for pregnant women. They point to the fact that the Texas’ maternal mortality board doesn’t plan on studying data from the years right after the state’s ban went into effect, and that it takes the committee several years to go through death data:
“We’ve said before that Texas’ abortion laws are too vague and dismissive of the complexities of ending pregnancies. If the governor and other supporters of the state ban believe in good faith the laws protect women in risky situations, then they shouldn’t be afraid to look at the data to see if they’re right.”
By the way, in a moment when conservatives are attacking data, women’s experiences will be even more important. That’s why I’m so grateful for projects like Abortion In America—a collection of post-Roe abortion stories, searchable by state. If you haven’t checked it out yet, you should.
In the Nation
Since the election, abortion rights activists have been laying out what they think President Joe Biden should do before Trump takes office to protect reproductive rights. (Or, at the very least, reduce some harm.) One of the most common recommendations I’ve heard is that Biden should pardon doctors who ship abortion medication to anti-choice states in order to protect them should Trump enforce the Comstock Act.
But in an interview with NOTUS, law professor Mary Ziegler expressed some concerns with that tactic:
“One of the sort of hesitations I have is, are these people actually violating the Comstock Act? That isn’t a settled legal question. Issuing pardons is risky in the sense that it would absolutely be used against people going forward if the Biden administration is essentially saying, ‘Yes, we were wrong, and these people are violating the Comstock Act.’”
The other issue Ziegler flags is that if Biden issued a mass pardon, abortion providers would have to apply online or by mail to get a government certificate saying the pardon applies to them. If that happens, the process could inadvertently create a “ready-made database” for a state Attorney General looking to prosecute providers.
Ziegler consistently makes smart predictions and points, so I trust what she’s saying; but I’d be curious to hear more from the activists eager to see Biden issue these pardons.
I’ve been writing a lot about travel bans this week, but it’s important to know that the laws aren’t the only ways that Republicans are attacking the right to travel for abortion care. They’re also taking a more roundabout approach to trapping women in anti-abortion states.
Conservatives know that abortion funds are enabling an enormous amount of out-of-state travel for women in ban states. The local groups aren’t just coordinating logistics like travel and lodging for patients, but are also often funding all or part of their procedure itself. As The Atlantic notes this week, even if Republicans’ policy efforts to ban travel don’t work, “abortion opponents can try to limit the work of practical-support groups by restricting their funding.”
And remember, these are groups that already in the middle of a funding crisis. A funding crisis that will get exponentially worse if the GOP is successful in banning mifepristone or using the Comstock Act to criminalize the shipping of abortion medication.
We’ve already seen their attempts in action: In addition to the laws that targeted specifically towards the funds, Republicans are trying to stop city councils like the ones in Austin and San Antonio from using local funds to help the groups. As I’ve written so many times before, they’re coming for the helpers.
Quick hits: Ms. magazine on preparing for Trump’s anti-abortion, anti-science cabinet; and a podcast interview with Jennifer Holland, author of “Tiny You: A Western History of the Anti-Abortion Movement.”
Stats & Studies
A new study shows that anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are pushing dangerous and false information. Not exactly a surprise, I know, but what makes this research interesting is that it relied on a new database of CPCs, ChoiceWatch. By using the analysis engine of CPC websites, researchers at the University of California San Diego could track what kinds of services the groups were advertising. As you can imagine, they’re as misleading as ever.
One of the most notable results was that about a third of the CPCs studies were advertising unproven and dangerous abortion ‘reversal’ procedures. Epidemiologist and study co-author John Ayers noted, “Nearly one-third are selling snake oil.”
“Not just benign snake oil, potentially dangerous and toxic snake oil,” he said.
The researchers also found that CPCs operate in all 50 states—which is especially important for us to remember. Too often, we think about these fake clinics as something that just happens in anti-abortion states; that’s just not the case.
Read more about how Republicans’ post-Roe strategy relies on crisis pregnancy centers:
Ballot Measures
A Missouri judge heard arguments today in the Planned Parenthood suit to overturn the state’s total ban, now that abortion rights are protected in the state constitution. As you know, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is arguing that the state’s restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP laws) are still constitutional despite Amendment 3, and that he’s just looking to protect minors and victims of ‘coerced’ abortion.
Pro-choice attorneys pointed out in their brief that the restrictions on abortion “will continue to be catastrophic for Missourians,” and that they’ll “either prevent care altogether or severely delay or interfere with care.”
It’s clear that Missouri anti-abortion groups and lawmakers are simply falling back on a signature strategy: claiming, despite all evidence to the contrary, that clinics are unsafe and that abortions are dangerous.
In a press conference yesterday, for example, Brian Westbrook from Coalition Life urged supporters to contact their representatives, support Bailey, and “hold Planned Parenthood accountable.”
“We cannot allow these facilities to operate without regulations and protections that have been put in place over decades to protect Missouri women. Simply put, the public needs to be aware of prior unsafe practices…”
I imagine we’ll see the same tactic in other states where Republicans are trying to weaken pro-choice amendments. They need to pretend as if this is all for our ‘protection.’
In the meantime, Missouri Republicans are also making moves to bring another abortion-related ballot measure to voters. This week, Rep. Justin Sparks filed a resolution aiming to reinstate the state’s abortion ban. The proposed amendment declares that the state constitution does not 'secure or protect a right to abortion' or require any public funding for it. The measure would also define embryos and fetuses as full legal human beings. Good times all around.
Mmm....live free or die, huh? I guess...it's just the "or die" that'll be happening.
Regarding the "parental rights" BS- somehow they're ALWAYS applied to teen girls,but never to those teen boys who are providing the sperm.
Just more authoritarian misogyny