Why Are Georgia Cops Investigating A Miscarriage?

7.24.24

Click here to skip ahead: In Pregnancy Criminalization, why are Georgia police investigating a non-crime? In the States, news from North Dakota, Iowa and more. Ballot Measure Updates looks at Florida, Arkansas, Arizona and New York. In Attacks on Language, Republicans are back on their ‘ban’ bullshit. In the Nation, some quick hits. In 2024 news, the anti-abortion movement and Republicans are panicking about Kamala Harris.

---

Pregnancy Criminalization

I’m sure you all remember Brittany Watts, the Ohio woman who was prosecuted for ‘abuse of a corpse’ after flushing her miscarriage. Thankfully, a grand jury declined to pursue a case against Watts—but not before local media splashed her name and face across the internet, claiming she had shoved a baby down her toilet.

What happened to Watts is exactly how criminalization happens, and followed a familiar pattern: A Black woman was turned in by a health care provider, targeted by a zealous misogynist prosecutor, and villainized by press outlets.

I’m sorry to say it appears there might be a similar case unfolding in Georgia, where police are investigating a fetus found in Grovetown.

Local media reports that WellStar MCG Health alerted law enforcement about a “patient who had recently given birth and left the fetus in the trash.” Remember: When people are turned in for their pregnancy outcomes, it’s most often healthcare providers who make the call.

Reporters also wrote that “the body” is being sent for an autopsy at Georgia Bureau of Investigation crime lab, and that the Columbia County Sheriff’s office has interviewed—but not yet arrested—the woman said to have given birth.

Abortion, Every Day is in the process of finding out more information, but the few key details that are already public beg the question: Why is there an investigation at all?

To start, officials told reporters that the fetus was “early-term” and not viable. In other words, it was a miscarriage. Investigator Philip Clark told WJBF that it appears the woman “just kind of panicked.”

Why, then, are police sending the tissue for an autopsy? There are no laws in Georgia that dictate how fetal remains must be disposed of—nor should there be! Do you want the government telling you how to handle a miscarriage or stillbirth? And if by some chance this was a self-managed abortion, Georgia law prohibits the prosecution of the patient.

Still, Clark says, “It’s something we have to look into code sections about, see what we can find if there is anything.”

As you know from Watts’ case, law enforcement and prosecutors will often target women with charges that are seemingly unrelated to abortion and pregnancy—like ‘abuse of a corpse.’ But there’s no separating the criminalization from abortion and personhood laws.

After all, experts warned years ago that Georgia’s abortion ban, a 2019 fetal heartbeat law, could lead to the arrest of women. And then-president of Planned Parenthood Southeast Staci Fox predicted that women who miscarry might be pulled into criminal investigations.

That’s exactly where we are right now: A woman went to a health center after miscarrying, and someone tasked with caring for her instead called law enforcement. Imagine going through a medical trauma just to find out police were sending off your fetus for an autopsy. It’s shameful. Adding insult to injury are the outlets covering this as a ‘crime’ story and running headlines about a fetus found “dead in a dumpster at Walmart.”

The fact that this is becoming a common story should terrify us all.

For more information on pregnancy criminalization, go to Pregnancy Justice, If/When/How, or read Abortion, Every Day here.

In the States

As you know, Iowa’s 6-week abortion ban is going into effect on Monday. You can find out all about the law here and support Iowa Abortion Access fund here. But I also wanted to flag what Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in response to the news about the law being enacted next week, because I think it’s pretty telling.

Reynolds—who has previously insisted that the ban is “the will of the people,” even though over 60% of Iowans want abortion to be legal—once again offered defensive messaging: “I remain deeply committed to supporting women in planning for motherhood, promoting the importance of fatherhood, elevating adoption, and protecting in vitro fertilization (IVF).”

She knows, as all Republicans do, that abortion bans are massively unpopular—and are losing the GOP elections. By focusing on her supposed support for IVF and “planning for motherhood,” Reynolds thinks she might be able to avoid some of voters’ ire. (By the way, it’s interesting/telling that she said she supports ‘planning’ for parenthood rather than explicitly mentioning birth control.)

Republicans in North Dakota are trying to get a legal challenge against the state’s abortion ban dismissed, arguing that the plaintiffs don’t have standing and are relying on hypothetical scenarios.

The Red River Women's Clinic, which brought the case forward, says that North Dakota’s ‘exception’ for women’s lives or “serious” health risks are unconstitutionally vague and too narrow. Because the clinic moved to a border town in Minnesota after Dobbs, the state claims that the providers don’t have legal standing to sue. Even worse, they say that the harm done to women is hypothetical—apparently they’re not willing to consider changing the law until a patient dies or loses their uterus.

Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Meetra Mehdizadeh tells the Associated Press that the danger is very real:

“Nationally, we are seeing physicians feeling like they have to delay, either to run more tests or to consult with legal teams or to wait for patients to get sicker, and so they know if the patient qualifies under the ban.”

I love this short profile at Fast Company of Allie Phillips, the woman who decided to run for office in Tennessee after being denied an abortion for her nonviable pregnancy. What Allie is doing is truly remarkable—and I think it’s going to be the start of a new generation of candidates running after being impacted by abortion bans:

“Hundreds of women have reached out to share their stories. Some of those women have said, ‘I’ve never told this story to anybody, but I felt like you would get it,’ and they shared their story with me. I feel like I’ve made this safe space for women to be vulnerable and open.”

Ballot Measure Updates

The Arkansas Supreme Court has ordered Republican Secretary of State John Thurston to count signatures counted by pro-choice activists in support of getting abortion rights on the November ballot.

But here’s the thing: It was only a partial win for Arkansans for Limited Government (AFLG), because the Court ruled that Thurston’s office needs to count signatures collected by volunteer petitioners. They didn’t say anything about the signatures collected by paid canvassers, nor did they give a clear order about whether the group could be allowed a cure period. (If they collected 75% of the signatures needed, AFLG could be allowed 30 more days to make up the difference.)

Still, the abortion advocates called the ruling a success, saying in a statement that “the will of the people won.” I’ll keep you updated as I find out more, and you should continue to read the Arkansas Times for coverage.

A coalition of New York senators is asking the state board of elections to add specific language about abortion and LGBTQ rights to the Equal Rights Amendment heading to voters in November.

The proposed ERA would protect both abortion rights and LGBTQ people, but there’s no mention of either in the ballot measure. From a letter sent by the senators:

“At a time when abortion rights are in jeopardy, voters must understand Proposal Number One will protect abortion rights in the state constitution. This critical point may be lost, however, if the word 'abortion' is not included in the ballot language.”

Make sure to check out this piece from Slate about the sketchy background of the opposition to Amendment 4, the pro-choice ballot measure in Florida. Apparently the PAC Florida Voters Against Extremism (FVAE)—formed solely to oppose Amendment 4—was created to appear as if it was an in-state group of concerned citizens. In reality, they’re a coalition of powerful anti-abortion and religious groups “cosplaying as grassroots campaigns.”

Not shocking, but interesting nonetheless. These groups know that Floridians want abortion to be legal—so they’re inventing the appearance of homegrown opposition.

Finally, there’s an ongoing fight in Arizona over the language of a ballot measure description. Republicans are using the term “unborn human being” in a pamphlet that the Secretary of State will mail to millions of voters about the pro-choice amendment heading to voters this November.

If this sounds familiar it’s because it’s near-identical to what Ohio Republicans did when voters were gearing up to decide on Issue 1. (The Secretary of State drafted a biased ballot summary created to mislead voters.) A lawyer for Arizona for Abortion Access told a judge this week that the phrase is “tinged with partisan coloring” and that the pamphlet should use the (accurate!) term ‘fetus.’

I know I’ve been writing about these attacks for a long time now, but it never ceases to shock me just how blatant Republicans are willing to be.

Attacks on Language

Speaking of attacks on language: This headline from Fox News is *exactly* why I’ve been tracking anti-abortion language tricks for so long:

Consider how absolutely absurd this assertion is. Trump doesn’t want to ‘ban’ abortion, he just wants to restrict it nationally at 15 weeks? There’s a reason they’re so desperate to do away with the word ‘ban.’ It’s the same reason why JD Vance says he supports a ‘minimum national standard.’ Republicans know that when they tell the clear truth about their policies, Americans vote against them.

We’re going to be seeing a whole lot more of headlines like this in the coming months, so make sure to keep an eye out and call them out whenever you can. We can’t let them get away with running from their nightmare laws.

In the Nation

• USA Today on keeping your digital privacy safe in a post-Roe world;

• The FDA has okayed the first orally dissolving birth control pill;

• And the CDC shows a decline in teen births.

2024

Now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee—she’s secured enough delegates to win the nomination at the convention in August—abortion is going to be the top political conversation until November.

Abortion was always going to be top of mind for voters, obviously, but Harris being the candidate makes the issue exponentially more important. Not only is this Harris’ issue—she has a long history with abortion rights—she’s a whole lot better on it than President Joe Biden ever was.

Democrats and abortion rights activists believe that this focus could very well could win us the election. After all, Americans overwhelmingly support abortion access, and the issue has been winning elections left and right since Roe was overturned.

Republicans on the other hand, are not feeling so great. (Which, obviously, I love.) They’ve been super eager to leave abortion behind. That’s why Donald Trump claimed to be giving the issue back to the states, and why we didn’t hear a word about abortion at the Republican National Convention.

At The Hill, Ryan Stitzlein, vice president of political and government relations at Reproductive Freedom for All, says, “They know this issue is politically toxic for them.”

“They’ve seen the poll numbers.They know when they’re talking about abortion, they’re losing. And with Kamala Harris as our nominee, that’s not an option for them. She is going to take this issue to them every single day.”

When asked about abortion rights now that Harris is the likely nominee, his press press secretary Karoline Leavitt did the expected pivot, saying, “President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion.” 

That’s going to be hard messaging to pull off: both because Trump picked a rabidly anti-abortion running mate, and because Project 2025 has such intense federal aspirations when it comes to abortion.

“If Harris prevails, it may have a big impact on how we address abortion rights because it’ll show that a more unapologetic, full-throated embrace of reproductive rights can lead you to win politically and overcome other political obstacles.” - Law professor Mary Ziegler

It’s been particularly fascinating to watch the anti-abortion response to Harris. They’re clearly stressed, and think the best way to attack her is to go all in on the idea that she’s an extremist. But as I noted this week, they’re just making her sound cooler and cooler.

First of all, they’re sticking with calling Harris the ‘abortion czar’—which is just objectively bad-ass. Other attacks anti-abortion groups have launched against Harris actually read like an incredible list of accomplishments. Here’s what the conservative publication WORLD named as evidence of Harris’ supposed extremism:

The fact that she has spoken at more than 90 “pro-abortion” events in 21 states since Dobbs; that she was the first vice president to ever visit an abortion clinic while in office; that Harris prosecuted the guy who released deceptively edited videos about Planned Parenthood; that as California Attorney General, she took on crisis pregnancy centers; and that Harris co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act and consistently voted against anti-abortion bills.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America spokeswoman Emily Davis says, “Under Kamala Harris, you’re now going to cement this ‘shout your abortion,’ abortion-on-demand type of stance.” Again, all of this sounds fucking amazing to me.

Quick hits:

• How Harris’ candidacy could play in Virginia, where Republicans lost big time in November thanks to their anti-abortion stance;

• Jill Filipovic writes at The Daily Beast that Harris can win because “she sits at the fortunate intersection of inspiration (a potential first), anger (over anti-abortion laws), novelty, and hope;”

• And Greg Sargent at The New Republic feels similarly optimistic about Harris, writing that she’s “campaigning on a promise of a freer society for women.”