Blog

Abortion Pill Access Could Still Face Challenges After Supreme Court Decision

NBC News, June 14, 2024

Anti-abortion groups show no signs of backing off their legal fight to restrict access to abortion pills even after Thursday’s Supreme Court victory kept the pills available in 36 states. The court’s ruling, while unanimous, was also somewhat limited. The justices agreed that anti-abortion doctors did not have legal standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration over actions it has taken in recent years making it easier to get mifepristone, one of two pills involved in a medication abortion. That ruling does little to slow the broader movement to restrict access. Three states plan to pursue a case in federal district court to make the pills harder to obtain. Reproductive rights lawyers also anticipate efforts on behalf of anti-abortion activists or legislators to revive a 151-year-old federal law that might prohibit sending abortion pills through the mail. Other abortion access advocates predict that a second Trump administration would lead to similar restrictions. The “trend of pushing back against women’s health and reproductive care is not going to stop just because of this case,” said Clara Spera, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center. Idaho, Kansas and Missouri intend to bring their own claims. Those states earlier this year successfully intervened in the case in federal district court in Amarillo, Texas, after the Supreme Court had already taken up the FDA’s appeal of lower court rulings that would have restricted access to the drug. “We could see this very case in Amarillo continue via the Idaho, Missouri and Kansas attorneys general, or we may see those states bring new copycat litigation elsewhere making the same junk science attacks on mifepristone and, similarly, seeking to strip away access to mifepristone nationwide,” said Julia Kaye, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. Whether the states can effectively take over the case from the group of anti-abortion doctors that originally sued is likely to be heavily contested.

Democrats Seek to Repeal Comstock Abortion Rule, Fearing Trump Crackdown

The Washington Post, June 20, 2024

Democrats are seeking to overhaul an 1873 federal law that bans abortion-related materials from being sent through the mail, worried that a future Trump administration could invoke the Comstock Act to crack down on abortion access or effectively ban the procedure altogether. “There is a very clear, well-organized plan afoot by the MAGA Republicans to use Comstock as a tool to ban medication abortion, and potentially all abortions,” said Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who on Thursday plans to introduce legislation to repeal the Comstock Act’s abortion provisions. “My job is to take that tool away.” Democrats’ push to defang the 151-year-old law comes less than five months before a presidential election in which reproductive rights appear destined to play a defining role. But the party’s mixed reaction to the plan underscores the balancing act between policy aspirations and political realities. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and other Democrats have signed on to the legislation, according to Smith’s office. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) will introduce companion legislation in the House, and in an interview she said she believed House Democratic leaders support the effort. “I’m not going to take a watch-and-see, laissez-faire attitude,” Balint said. “We can and we have to take Republicans at their word that they want a federal ban.” The campaign is receiving support from major advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union and Reproductive Freedom for All. The legislation, which Smith’s office crafted after consulting with the Justice Department, would preserve aspects of the law that allow officials to crack down on child pornography. Not all Democrats agree that attempting to repeal the Comstock Act’s abortion provisions should be an election-year priority, worried it will distract from the party’s existing efforts to protect abortion access and to focus voters’ attention on reproductive health issues.

Post-Dobbs, Abortion Clinics Find New Ways To Serve Patients in States with Bans

CNN, June 19, 2024

In the last couple years, Houston Women’s Reproductive Services scaled down from nearly 5,000 square-feet to an 800-square-foot location. The Texas clinic cut more than a dozen full-time employees down to a medical director and three part-time staff members. It’s no longer able to provide abortions, but it changed its focus and stayed open. “I was willing to make whatever sacrifices needed to be made to keep our head above water, just keep the doors open and the lights on, and be able to provide care to these people who desperately need our help,” said clinic administrator Kathy Kleinfeld. It’s one example of the shift to the country’s abortion landscape since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision ended the federal right to abortion two years ago. Since then, 14 states have near-total bans on abortion. Clinics can no longer provide abortions in more than a quarter of US states. Although the total number of facilities that provide abortions in the United States hasn’t changed that much – only a couple dozen clinics have closed completely – the number of closures doesn’t always capture the upheaval. States that enacted abortion bans generally had few clinics to start with. Since Dobbs, some packed up and moved to places where they can still provide care, but may require patients to travel further. Still other clinics remain open, but in a different capacity. Kleinfeld’s clinic in Houston pivoted to broader reproductive health, including pre- and post-abortion care for those who travel out of state or self-manage their abortions. In the months before the Supreme Courts’ Dobbs decision, there were about 3,000 abortions a month in Houston and Kleinfeld said she knew that need wouldn’t stop once Texas’ trigger law banned abortions. “There were a lot of different ways it could have gone; most of all would have involved closing,” Kleinfeld said of her clinic in Houston. “That was just not something I was willing to do.”

The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Making a Big Play To Thwart Citizen Initiatives on Reproductive Rights

The Washington Post, June 16, 2024

Reeling from a string of defeats, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives intended to protect reproductive rights or prevent voters from having a say in the fall elections.The tactics include attempts to get signatures removed from initiative petitions, legislative pushes for competing ballot measures that could confuse voters and monthslong delays caused by lawsuits over ballot initiative language. Abortion rights advocates say many of the strategies build off ones tested last year in Ohio, where voters eventually passed a constitutional amendment affirming reproductive rights. The strategies are being used in one form or another in at least seven states where initiatives aimed at codifying abortion and reproductive rights are proposed for the November ballot. The fights over planned statewide ballot initiatives are the latest sign of the deep divisions created by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision two years ago to end a constitutional right to abortion. The stakes for the proposed ballot initiatives are high for both sides. Where Republicans control the legislature and enact strict abortion limits, a statewide citizens initiative is often the only avenue for protecting access to abortion and other reproductive rights. Voters have either enshrined abortion rights or turned back attempts to restrict it in all seven states where the question has been on the ballot since 2022. In South Dakota, lawmakers passed a bill allowing residents to withdraw their signatures on citizen-led petitions. This launched a comprehensive effort by anti-abortion groups to invalidate a proposed abortion rights ballot measure by encouraging endorsers to withdraw signatures. In Missouri, Republicans and anti-abortion groups have opposed efforts to restore abortion rights through a constitutional amendment at every step in the process. Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey stonewalled the abortion-rights campaign for months last year. Then the secretary of state, Republican Jay Ashcroft, tried to describe the proposal to voters as allowing “dangerous and unregulated abortions until live birth.” A state appeals court last year ruled that Ashcroft’s wording was politically partisan and tossed it.

Parole and Probation Rules Limit Travel. That Can Be Complicated For People Seeking Abortions.

The 19th, June 18, 2024

In the two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, the number of patients forced to seek out-of-state abortion services has doubled. One population often overlooked in reproductive rights conversations are people under community supervision, also known as probation and parole, which often prohibits travel across state lines without government approval. A new briefing by the public policy think tank Prison Policy Initiative puts these challenges into context for a country without Roe. About 800,000 U.S. women are under probation or parole, according to PPI’s analysis. Probation happens when a convicted person serves their time outside of a jail or prison but is still under legal surveillance and restrictions. Parole is a similar concept, but is given to a person who has served time in prison and is released early under the condition that they follow a strict set of rules. These conditions can include hefty fees, curfews, job requirements, travel restrictions and meetings with a probation or parole officer. Every state and Washington, D.C. restricts the movement of people under community supervision. Violating these restrictions can lead to prison time. Fifty-three percent of women on probation and parole live in the 21 states that have abortion restrictions set earlier than the point of fetal viability, which is usually around 22 to 25 weeks. As a result, only 1 in 6 women on probation or parole can access abortion services at any stage of their pregnancy without needing permission to cross state lines, according to the PPI briefing. “It’s exponentially more difficult, I would say, for people on community supervision because they have to literally go and ask permission from their probation parole officers, or from the court, to cross state lines,” said Wendy Sawyer, research director at the Prison Policy Initiative.“You have to give really detailed information about what your travel plan is, so that means that you’re leaving their ability to access abortion care to people who shouldn’t have any say in the decision.

ICYMI: In Case You Missed It

While today's SCOTUS ruling is positive, it's also the bare minimum. The decision to use mifepristone should not be up to judges or politicians with extreme political agendas, but rather individuals themselves who seek care – full stop. https://t.co/S6QCtShmeM

— National Partnership (@NPWF) June 13, 2024

 

 

We respect your privacy. Read our policy.

Note: The information contained in this publication reflects media coverage of women’s health issues and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Partnership for Women & Families.