The Week In Abortion (Vacation Edition)

8.12.24 - 8.16.24

Abortion, Every Day is on vacation through 8/23. But in the interest of not getting too far behind, here’s a recap of what happened this past week in abortion rights news. Next week, keep an eye out for some amazing guest columnists.

Click to skip ahead: Care Denied looks at the women turned away from hospital emergency rooms. In the States has news from Montana, Indiana, Iowa and more. Anti-Abortion Language Watch reveals more about the war on birth control. And in 2024 news, JD Vance can’t catch a break, but VP Kamala Harris is killing it in the polls. I have Ballot Measure Updates in Arizona, Missouri and Idaho. In the Nation, some quick hits and stories to read. Finally, From Jessica has a quick note from yours truly.

---

Care Denied

Since Roe was overturned, we’ve seen horror story after horror story coming out of states with abortion bans—from women going septic and raped children denied care to cancer patients forced to leave their states. Women are even dying. It’s exactly as bad as we warned it would be.

Now, an Associated Press analysis has found that at least 100 pregnant women have been turned away from emergency rooms despite EMTALA, the federal law requiring hospitals to provide life-saving and stabilizing treatment. Two of those women—Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz and Kyleigh Thurman—filed a federal lawsuit this week against the Texas hospitals that refused them care.

Center for Reproductive Rights says the pair “nearly died and suffered permanent damage to their reproductive organs” after they were denied emergency care for ectopic pregnancies, which are life-threatening.

Twenty-five year old Norris-De La Cruz, for example, lost one of her fallopian tubes and most of an ovary after a hospital refused to treat her. “The doctors knew I needed an abortion, but these bans are making it nearly impossible to get basic emergency healthcare,” she said.

And when Thurman went to the emergency room for life-saving care, she was simply given a pamphlet on miscarriage and told to “let nature take its course.” By the time Ascension Seton Williamson hospital agreed to treat Thurman, the pregnancy had ruptured her fallopian tube, necessitating life-saving surgery. “That’s when I just kind of was like, ‘Oh my God, I’m, I’m dying,’” Thurman said.

Remember, this is what anti-abortion groups say is a myth. They claim women never need abortions to save their lives and that abortion rights advocates are just peddling in scare tactics. I would love for them to say that to these women’s faces.

I also want to point out that this nightmare isn’t just about abortion bans—but the entire anti-abortion ecosystem: If the hospital name “Ascension” sounds familiar, it’s because I wrote about that particular system earlier this year:

The Catholic Hospital System Killing Women

That’s right, this is the group fueling the country’s maternal mortality crisis. Ascension is the second-largest and wealthiest Catholic health system in America, in part because they put their bottom line above patient care. National Nurses United (NNU) reported that Ascension is “one of the nation’s worst offenders for closing obstetrics units,” and is responsible for maternal health deserts across the U.S.

The system—which has 140 hospitals in 19 states—cut 26% of their labor and delivery departments in the last decade, and shuttered five maternity wards since 2022. After Ascension closed an obstetrics unit in one of their Florida hospitals in 2019, the maternal death rate in the county more than doubled by 2021.

And remember the young Texas woman whose death-by-abortion ban was profiled in The New Yorker? She was also a patient an an Ascension hospital.

I’ll keep you updated about the Center for Reproductive Rights lawsuit, but consider this a reminder that repealing bans is just one part of the work we have ahead of us.

In the States

We got some good news this week: the Montana Supreme Court struck down a law requiring parental consent for abortions, ruling that it “violates the fundamental right of a minor to control their body and destiny.” Justice Laurie McKinnon, who authored the decision, wrote that “a minor's right to control her reproductive decisions is among the most fundamental of the rights she possesses.” Abortion rights have been protected in the Montana constitution since 1999.

As you can imagine, Republicans are furious, and I’m sure they’ll be using this to try to drum up outrage. Remember, ‘parental rights’ has become the latest buzzword for anti-abortion lawmakers and activists. From travel bans masked as ‘anti-trafficking’ laws to false claims that pro-choice ballot measures would allow children to get gender-affirming surgery, conservatives are hoping that focusing on minors might make a dent in abortion rights’ incredible popularity.

As is usually the case, Montana Republicans couldn’t help but say something strange and telling in response to the Court’s decision. Attorney General spokesperson Chase Scheuer called the ruling “radical,” asking, “What will the court decide next, that parents don’t need to consent to their child’s underage marriage?” Huh? Why bring up child marriage you big weirdo? Also, we all know who opposes laws banning child marriage and it’s not Republicans.

While this ruling did away with the law requiring parental consent for an abortion, there is still a legal challenge against the law requiring parental notification.

In Indiana, Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita has dropped his case against against Indiana University Health. Rokita accused the hospital of violating HIPAA after Dr. Caitlin Bernard relayed an anecdote about a 10 year-old rape victim who had to leave the state for an abortion. Rokita used the full power of the state to harass and punish Bernard—even though she didn’t reveal identifying information about the girl, and despite expert agreement that the OBGYN did nothing wrong.

This was always about punishing an abortion provider for speaking up about the horrors of bans, and creating a chilling effect to prevent any more stories from coming out that could make Republicans look bad.

What makes this feigned concern over patient privacy all the more ironic is that Rokita is in the middle of trying to make abortion reports public records in the same way that birth or death certificates are.

Now that Iowa’s abortion ban has taken effect, Planned Parenthood has dropped its legal challenge against the law. Ruth Richardson, president of Planned Parenthood North Central States said, “the heartbreaking reality is that continuing this case at this moment would not improve or expand access to care.”

Quick hits:

• IVF patients are moving their embryos out of Alabama after the contentious state Supreme Court ruling;

• Oklahoma is fighting the federal government in court over Title X funds;

• New York anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers are preemptively suing state Attorney General Letitia James before she goes after them for consumer fraud;

• And more on the OBGYN exodus in Idaho, which has been one of the worst in the nation.

Anti-Abortion Language Watch

If you’re a regular reader, you probably already know that conservatives want to ban birth control. (They only say that out loud every once in a while, of course.) You also likely know that one of their biggest strategies around banning contraception is redefining certain kinds of birth control as ‘abortifacients’. The idea is to claim that emergency contraception and IUDs aren’t actually birth control at all, but abortions.

The latest example comes from a lawsuit in Washington, where a church is challenging a mandate that requires employers to offer health coverage that includes abortion. What caught my attention is the language used in the legal brief: It doesn’t just argue against providing health plans that cover abortion, but also those that include “abortifacient-contraceptive coverage.” In fact, the term “abortifacient-contraceptive” is mentioned 14 times throughout the document.

The legal group behind the suit? Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-abortion powerhouse responsible for the case that overturned Roe and for challenging EMTALA and mifepristone at the Supreme Court. When ADF brings a case, it’s never just for show—they're aiming to set a precedent on birth control.

You may remember a similar case in Oregon, where Oregon Right to Life sought an exemption from the state law requiring insurance plans to cover contraception. They argued that emergency contraception and certain kinds of IUDs aren’t birth control at all, but rather “abortifacient ‘contraceptives.’” I think it’s safe to say we’re going to see more cases like this moving forward.

2024

JD Vance is a fucking disaster and I’m loving every minute of it. Resurfaced audio shows Vance agreeing with a podcast host who says grandmothers helping to raise children is “the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female.” (Something tells me those postmenopausal females are going to have something to say about that come November.) And the Christian Science Monitor found this week that Vance said that companies who support abortion right just want a pool of “cheap labor.”

This comes in the wake of Vance taking heat for calling women without children ‘childless cat ladies’ and admitting that he not only wants a national abortion ban, but also believes federal legislation may be needed to prevent women from leaving anti-choice states to seek care.

And mark your calendars: Vance will debate Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz on October 1st. (That also happens to be the same day that my new book is released, which I’m taking as a good omen!) For more on Vance and abortion, read Abortion, Every Day’s coverage here.

The best 2024 news this week, though, is that presidential nominee Kamala Harris is leading in the polls both nationally and in key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even North Carolina. It’s been so incredible to watch Harris generate this kind of excitement—I feel optimistic for the first time in a long time.

Ballot Measure Updates

It’s official in Missouri and Arizona: Pro-choice measures in both states qualified for the November ballot. That doesn’t mean abortion rights activists there are in the clear, however. As you certainly know by now, abortion rights have won every time they’ve been on the ballot since Roe was overturned; so Republicans are working overtime to keep voters from having a say.

Missouri Republicans held up signature gathering for the measure for months, for example, and the state Attorney General said outright that he would refuse to do his job if abortion rights were restored. Anti-abortion activists in the state even sent voters text messages warning them against signing the pro-choice petition, claiming that petitioners were trying to steal their identities. So the measure heads to the ballot with all sorts of baggage.

And in Arizona this week, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti-abortion activists and legislators, allowing them to use the term “unborn human being” in an informational pamphlet sent to all Arizona voters about the measure. Republicans in Ohio did something similar when Issue 1 was up for a vote last year: the Secretary of State wrote a biased ballot summary, language we later found out was drafted with major anti-abortion groups.

This comes at the same time that anti-abortion groups in Arizona are petitioning the state Supreme Court to disallow the measure altogether, arguing that voters who signed the pro-choice petition were misled.

This is a good time to remind folks that Arizona voters are likely feeling pretty motivated on abortion rights; it wasn’t so long ago that the state Supreme Court allowed an 1864 abortion ban to be enacted, sparking a national backlash that eventually led to the law being repealed.

Finally, something interesting is happening in Idaho: Pro-choice activists have filed four different initiatives that would restore abortion rights in the state. Idaho doesn’t allow citizen-led initiatives that change the state constitution—those need to be led by lawmakers. But citizens can propose or repeal legislation using ballot measures, so that’s what Idahoans United for Women and Families is doing.

The Idaho Statesman reports that the group has filed four different proposals, with the hope of getting one in front of voters in 2026. The differences between the proposals are largely about when the government can interfere in pregnancy decisions. One, for example, would allow for abortion up until ‘viability’; another would protect abortion until 24 weeks. You can read the four proposed initiatives here.

I’ll keep you updated as I find out more, but I have to imagine that Idaho voters are eager to have a say on abortion rights—the state has been one of the hardest hit by its abortion ban. Idaho has lost nearly a quarter of its OBGYNs, maternity wards are shuttering, and the state was at the center of the Supreme Court’s EMTALA case.

“[Kamala] Harris needs to drive home that in a post-Roe world, Mr. Trump would probably have unusual power to criminalize abortion. She must also convey that under a Republican administration, there would be no state in the country where reproductive rights would be absolutely secure.”

-Law professor Mary Ziegler in The New York Times

In the Nation

• A new KFF poll shows what we’ve seen in every poll since Dobbs: America supports abortion.

• Axios published an updated map of where we can expect to see abortion on the ballot.

• Teen Vogue interviewed one of the SWAN clinic escorts.

• The New York Times on conservatives’ plan of attack on IVF, a chipping away approach that moves forward with or without Trump.

• Finally, The Guardian published an absolutely wrenching piece about the impact of abortion bans on child rape victims. It’s an important piece, but an incredibly difficult read.

  ---

From Jessica:

My new book, Abortion: Our Bodies, Their Lies, and the Truths We Use to Win, is coming out on October 1st and I’m getting increasingly excited (and a little nervous) about its release. I’ll share more details after my vacation, but there will be some special perks for subscribers who pre-order the book, so consider buying a copy if you haven’t already!

Pre-orders are crucial for authors: they can boost the chances of hitting bestseller lists and signal reader demand to booksellers—both of which amplify the work (and the issue) to a broader audience. I’ve seen this community accomplish incredible things, and I’d love your help to get Abortion into as many hands as possible. 

There’s a reason I worked nights and weekends on this book even as I continued to write the newsletter: I wanted Abortion out before the election.

My hope is that the book will be useful to all of you who follow the issue closely, supporting whatever work you’re already doing, and that it will inform and mobilize those who need just a little more—whether it's language, facts, or confidence—to organize and vote for abortion rights this November. 

Obviously, I want the book to do well on a personal and professional level—but I also truly believe that drawing attention to Abortion can help drive meaningful support and action on abortion rights. This community has a pretty incredible reach, so I hope you’ll help me spread the word as the release date approaches.

Finally, some exciting news! Kirkus gave Abortion a starred review this weekend, praising it as “trenchant” and a “call to action for both inexperienced and seasoned pro-choice activists.” This comes after Publishers Weekly called the book “clarifying and incandescent.” Whew!