TX Appoints Radical Anti-Choicer to Maternal Mortality Committee

5.22.24

Click to skip ahead: In Texas Maternal Death Nightmare, you’re not going to believe who got appointed to the state’s maternal mortality committee. Louisiana & Abortion Pills looks at the move to make abortion medication a controlled substance. In the States, news from Arkansas, Tennessee and Kansas. Ballot Measure Updates from Nevada and Nebraska. In the Nation, a few quick hits. In 2024 news, perhaps an unpopular opinion on Trump’s comments on contraception. And in Stats & Studies, a shocking new stat about OBGYN residents.

---

Texas’ Maternal Death Nightmare

Doing this work, it takes a lot to shock me. But my jaw was absolutely on the floor when I saw the news that anti-abortion activist Ingrid Skop has been appointed to Texas’ maternal mortality committee. If Skop’s name sounds familiar, that’s because she is one of the best-known anti-abortion OBGYNs in the country—a woman who works for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, regularly testifies in favor of abortion bans, and publishes nonsense anti-abortion studies.

In fact, remember the studies that were retracted because they had “unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions,” “material errors” and “misleading presentations” of data that “demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part?” That’s Skop!

But it’s not just that Skop is a bad or biased researcher—she’s dangerous, especially as it pertains to maternal mortality. Skop doesn’t believe abortion is necessary to save women’s lives; instead she recommends forced vaginal deliveries and c-sections for those who have life-threatening pregnancies. She’s also spent a whole lot of time arguing that maternal mortality statistics can’t be trusted and that abortion bans don’t and won’t lead to maternal deaths.

There’s more: Skop believes that maternal mortality numbers are undercounting the number of deaths due to abortions. She’s even argued that maternal death statistics should include women who die by suicide after having an abortion. How would one establish a link? Well, if the way Texas defines abortion ‘complications’ is any indication, there wouldn’t need to be a connection at all.

I’m going to write a separate piece on this appointment, because it’s just that egregious, but let me be very clear right now: Texas Republicans are putting Skop on the maternal mortality board to do both stop the committee from counting deaths caused by abortion bans, and to drum up fake statistics that say women are dying because of abortion. It’s a nightmare.

Not that you need a reminder of what Texas is like for pregnant people, but this viral Twitter thread is just mind-boggling—and a perfect example of why people like Skop are so dangerous. Ryan Hamilton’s wife, fresh into her second trimester, was denied care even though her fetus didn’t have a heartbeat. Multiple hospitals told the couple that they would have to just wait it out at home:

“Another long day/night of early labor pains. Only to discover my wife UNCONSCIOUS in the bathroom. Having to pick my wife's cold, limp body off of that bathroom floor, not sure if I was about to lose her, is something I will NEVER forget. She had to be rushed to the hospital.”

This is what a ‘pro-life’ state looks like.

Louisiana & Abortion Pills

I’m sorry to say that Louisiana lawmakers have advanced a bill to make abortion medication a a controlled substance—a classification that would allow the state to track abortion patients who use the pill. You won’t be surprised to find out that the legislation was drafted with Louisiana Right to Life.

It really is nightmare legislation. By making the pills akin to addictive medications like opioids and stimulants, the law would make it much harder for women to be able to access the medication. Controlled substances also need to be locked away at hospitals, making them harder to get in emergencies. And remember—abortion is illegal in Louisiana. So when it comes to regulations for hospitals, we’re talking about patients who are hemorrhaging or miscarrying.

But the real goal of the legislation is twofold:

1. As I pointed out last week, the bill would allow the state to track women who’ve taken abortion medication, because controlled substances are reported and tracked in a state database. This comes at the same time that the GOP and anti-abortion groups in Indiana are working to make women’s abortion reports public records, and as Republican Senators propose legislation that would enable them to harvest pregnant women’s information.

2. It would allow the state to go after abortion funds as drug dealers and traffickers. As you know, there’s been a massive increase in legislation targeting abortion funds and anyone who helps people obtain abortions. Law professor Mary Ziegler has a good piece at MSNBC all about this, if you’re interested.

If the Louisiana law is enacted, it’s unclear how the state would enforce the law. But as Dana Sussman of Pregnancy Justice told The Washington Post, the point is to create a chilling effect and make people too afraid to seek out the medication. She says that Republicans are targeting the pills because it’s “allowed people to maintain some bodily autonomy even in banned states.” (New numbers from #WeCount show that 8,000 people a month have been able to get abortion medication from doctors in shield states.)

The bill passed the state House yesterday and will go back to the Senate. I’ll keep you updated as I find out more.

In the States

We’re not done with attacks on abortion medication quite yet. (If only!) In Arkansas, Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin has sent cease and desist letters to two groups shipping abortion medication to states with abortion bans. Griffin—who has a history of anti-abortion activism—tells Aid Access and Choices Women’s Medical Center in New York that by advertising the pills to Arkansas women, they’re violating the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The letters to both groups say that their “business practices may constitute false, deceptive and unconscionable trade practices,” and that they have two weeks to respond before the AG considers bringing a suit against them with civil penalties of $10,000 per violation.

“Abortions are prohibited in Arkansas except under very limited circumstances. As such, abortion pills may not be legally shipped to Arkansans or brought into the State for use by Arkansans,” Griffin said in a release.

This threat from the Arkansas AG aligns with what we’re seeing more broadly across the country: Republicans going after the groups that help abortion patients, and attacks on free speech. (Travel bans in multiple states seek to criminalize even sharing information on abortion.)

Okay, I think we could all use some good news after that. A new poll shows that the majority of Tennessee voters identify as ‘pro-choice.’ I don’t think I need to explain how amazing that is! The numbers from Vanderbilt University show that 52% of Tennesseans call themselves ‘pro-choice’; and this comes after a Louisiana poll reported that 54% of voters want abortion to be legal at least until 15 weeks.

Kansas abortion providers and activists are suing over the state’s new abortion reporting mandate—a requirement that doctors ask patients invasive questions about why they’re ending their pregnancy and then report those answers to the state. The suit is being brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood.

Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Alice Wang says, “The decision to have an abortion is deeply personal—no one should be forced to tell the government why they are making that decision.”

As you all know by now, this is part of a broader anti-abortion effort focusing on data-collection, abortion reporting, and attacks on privacy.

Quick hits:

• Nebraska Public Media on the year anniversary of the state’s 12-week abortion ban;

• The legal fight over Michigan’s 24-hour waiting period;

• 60% of Arizona voters believe the 1864 abortion ban should have been repealed;

• And Georgia’s anti-abortion Supreme Court justice has held onto his seat.

Ballot Measure Updates

Another ballot measure has entered the mix in Nebraska, and it’s not a good one. The Nebraska Examiner reports that anti-abortion activists are collecting signatures for the “Now Choose Life” amendment, which would grant personhood to fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses. There is no exception for rape, incest, or even the life of the pregnant person.

If successful, this will be the third abortion-related ballot measure heading to voters in November. Protect Our Rights, led by abortion rights groups, would enshrine abortion rights until ‘viability.’ In response to that pro-choice measure, a coalition of anti-abortion groups launched Protect Women and Children—a similar-sounding campaign created to trick voters into enshrining Nebraska’s 12-week ban into the state constitution. (Click here for a refresher on Republicans’ fake ‘pro-choice’ ballot measures in Nebraska and potentially Arizona.)

Abortion rights activists in Nevada say they’ve turned in nearly twice the number of signatures required to get abortion on the ballot in November. The Associated Press reports that Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom has submitted more than 200,000 signatures for an amendment to protect abortion rights up until 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The group’s president, Lindsey Harmon, said, “The majority of Nevadans agree that the government should stay out of their personal and private decisions.”

Nevada is one of a handful of pro-choice states using a ballot measure to add an extra layer of protection for abortion rights. If voters passed the amendment this year, it would go on the ballot again in 2026 to amend the state constitution.

---

If you missed my piece on Sens. Katie Britt and Ted Cruz’s new bullshit IVF bill, make sure to read and share it. It’s an important one:

The GOP's IVF Lie

---

In the Nation

• Six thousand doctors from all 50 states have sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking them to uphold EMTALA, the federal law that requires hospitals to provide life-saving and stabilizing care (even abortions);

• Stateline on the Republican Attorneys General suing to stop the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act from requiring employers to give abortion patients time off;

• Jill Filipovic is in TIME writing about the threat to birth control;

• And “Consider This” on NPR has a short segment about where abortion is on the ballot this November.

2024

Okay, I’m about to give what may be an unpopular take. There’s been a flurry of articles over the last few days over a comment that Donald Trump made during an interview with local television station in Pittsburgh. The reporter asked the disgraced former president whether or not he’d support restrictions on contraception, to which Trump replied, “We’re looking at that, and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly and I think it’s something that you’ll find interesting.”

You can watch a video of the exchange here, but it appears to me that Trump answered this way because he didn’t actually know what the word ‘contraception’ meant. To be clear: I think Trump will do whatever the anti-abortion movement wants on birth control! But in this case, it really just seems as if he’s totally making something up on the spot because he didn’t get the question. Which is bad enough, honestly.

In response to the outrage over the clip, Trump said the idea that he would target contraception is “misinformation” and “a Democrat fabricated lie.”

“I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN ON BIRTH CONTROL, AND NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!”

This is where I think he actually said something telling. Trump says he doesn’t support a ‘ban’ on birth control, but given Republicans attempts to redefine the word ‘ban’, that’s not much of a promise: the anti-abortion movement says a ban makes something illegal without exception. And as I’ve written previously, the GOP is not going to risk voter outrage by proposing an outright prohibition on contraception. (At least, not yet.) Instead, they’re eradicating access to birth control using a slow chipping away process.

All of which is to say, saying you won’t ‘ban’ birth control doesn’t mean much if you plan to make it impossible to get regardless.

Meanwhile, Trump promised in his recent interview with TIME magazine that he’d be announcing something on abortion medication “in two weeks.” That was three weeks ago. (The Washington Post has more on the various abortion pivots he’s made.)

“Nobody thinks they’re ever going to need a later abortion and so it’s very easy to distance yourself, but then it happens to all of the people we see—all of those people didn’t think they were going to need to come see us and here they are.”

- Abortion provider Dr. Diane Horvath, in an absolute must-read HuffPost article about abortions later in pregnancy

Stats & Studies

New research shows that nearly 73% of doctors applying to OBGYN residencies said that the Dobbs decision influenced which programs they applied to. What’s more, 96.9% said they applied to programs in states that had fewer abortion restrictions. That’s an incredible number—one that doesn’t bode well for anti-abortion states struggling with reproductive and maternal health care deserts.

Right now, two million American women live in a “double desert”: a county without abortion access or maternal health care. States with abortion bans are rapidly losing OBGYNs and maternal fetal medicine specialists; and hospitals in those states are having a difficult time recruiting new doctors to replace them. We’re already in the middle of a health care crisis, but it’s only going to get worse for women in anti-choice states.

Want to help? Considering supporting an abortion fund.