Blog

Alabama Rules Frozen Embryos Are Children, Raising Questions About Fertility Care

The New York Times, February 20, 2024

An Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos in test tubes should be considered children has sent shock waves through the world of reproductive medicine, casting doubt over fertility care for would-be parents in the state and raising complex legal questions with implications extending far beyond Alabama. On Tuesday, Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said the ruling would cause “exactly the type of chaos that we expected when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and paved the way for politicians to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.” Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as President Biden traveled to California, Ms. Jean-Pierre reiterated the Biden administration’s call for Congress to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law. “As a reminder, this is the same state whose attorney general threatened to prosecute people who help women travel out of state to seek the care they need,” she said, referring to Alabama, which began enforcing a total abortion ban in June 2022. The judges issued the ruling on Friday in appeals cases brought by couples whose embryos were destroyed in 2020, when a hospital patient removed frozen embryos from tanks of liquid nitrogen in Mobile and dropped them on the floor. Referencing anti abortion language in the state constitution, the judges’ majority opinion said that an 1872 statute allowing parents to sue over the wrongful death of a minor child applies to unborn children, with no exception for “extrauterine children.” “Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote in a concurring opinion, citing scripture. Infertility specialists and legal experts said the ruling had potentially profound effects, which should be of concern to every American who may need to access reproductive services like in vitro fertilization.

A New Abortion Access Strategy

The New York Times, February 22, 2024

Doctors in a handful of blue states have found a way to provide abortions to women in red states where it is banned or restricted. They are doing it with a new tool: laws that protect them from prosecutors elsewhere. These telemedicine shield laws block officials in red states who might prosecute or sue the abortion providers in Massachusetts, New York, California, Vermont, Colorado and Washington State. Those states won’t extradite doctors. They won’t turn over records. They won’t aid in any investigation. It’s a sharp break from the usual pattern of interstate cooperation, as I report in a news story today. I’ve been covering abortion for over a decade. Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade and triggered a wave of bans in conservative states, abortion rights advocates have worked to preserve access. They’ve used mobile clinics across the border from red states – and funds that cover the cost of travel to places where abortion is legal. In today’s newsletter, I’ll talk about one of the newest approaches. The providers started mailing abortion pills under the shield laws just last summer. But their reach has surprised even some advocates. They’ve already prescribed and mailed abortion pills to tens of thousands of women in Texas, Idaho and other places that banned abortion after the high court’s 2022 decision. Patients find them online and fill out forms about their medical history. Providers then evaluate whether patients are eligible. They can be up to 12 weeks’ pregnant and must have no disqualifying medical issues like an ectopic pregnancy or a blood-clotting disorder.

Trump Privately Expresses Support for a 16-Week Abortion Ban

The New York Times, February 16, 2024

Former President Donald J. Trump has told advisers and allies that he likes the idea of a 16-week national abortion ban with three exceptions, in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother, according to two people with direct knowledge of Mr. Trump’s deliberations. Mr. Trump has studiously avoided taking a clear position on restrictions to abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned in the middle of 2022, galvanizing Democrats ahead of the midterm elections that year. He has said in private that he wants to wait until the Republican presidential primary contest is over to publicly discuss his views, because he doesn’t want to risk alienating social conservatives before he has secured the nomination, the two people said. Mr. Trump has approached abortion transactionally since becoming a candidate in 2015, and his current private discussions reflect that same approach. One thing Mr. Trump likes about a 16-week federal ban on abortions is that it’s a round number. “Know what I like about 16?” Mr. Trump told one of these people, who was given anonymity to describe a private conversation. “It’s even. It’s four months.” When discussing prospective vice-presidential candidates, Mr. Trump often asks whether they are “OK on abortion.” He is instantly dismissive when he hears that a Republican doesn’t support “the three exceptions.” He tells advisers that Republicans will keep losing elections with that position. Mr. Trump is hoping to vanquish his remaining primary rival, Nikki Haley, in the South Carolina Republican primary on Feb. 24. The state has restrictive abortion laws that took effect in 2023 essentially banning the procedure after six weeks.

Abortion Care and Transgender Health Care Are ‘Parallel Struggles’ in 2024 Legislation

News from the States , February 16, 2024

Last year, lawmakers approved the Reproductive Health Protection Act, which shields health care providers in Maryland from liability if they help out-of-state patients obtain an abortion, as long as the services provided are legal under Maryland law. But a bill in the 2024 legislative session would expand those protections to providers of gender-affirming care as some states work toward prohibiting certain procedures, particularly when for young transgender residents. “Women’s rights and trans justice are parallel struggles in the fight for bodily autonomy, and that protection needs clarity,” Jamie Grace Alexander, of the Trans Rights Advocacy Coalition, told the Senate Finance Committee Thursday in support of Senate Bill 119. Sen. Clarence K. Lam (D-Howard and Anne Arundel) is the lead sponsor of the bill. He is a physician and also sits on the Senate Finance Committee. Lam said that the bill would ensure that “Marylanders aren’t extradited to other states or have their medical records subpoenaed because they received, provided or supported gender-affirming care.” Gender-affirming care refers to a multitude of procedures and treatments to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity, including hormone therapy, voice training, surgical alterations, and other medical services, under Maryland health care laws. According to 2022 estimates from the Williams Institute – a think tank of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law – there are around 8,000 minors and 24,000 adults over the age of 18 in Maryland who identify as transgender. Data from the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit progressive think tank mapping LGBTQ+ policies across the United States, reports that nearly two dozen states have banned physicians from providing minors with gender-affirming care.

Living in an Abortion Ban State Is Bad for Mental Health

Vox, February 20, 2024

The false idea that getting an abortion makes women irreparably depressed and anxious, that it causes a deep psychic wound, has for decades been used by anti-abortion activists to support abortion restrictions. But the argument is entirely based on anecdotes, personal beliefs, and vibes. No good science has demonstrated this link. That’s not because nobody’s tried to answer the question of what the mental health impacts of abortion are on the women who obtain them. It’s because the answer to that question, over and over again, is: none. In study after study, researchers have consistently shown that getting an abortion does not cause mental health problems. What does reliably worsen women’s mental health, however, is banning or restricting abortion access. A wealth of research has shown that when people are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies, it negatively impacts their physical health and finances — and mental health. In a survey conducted before the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, women living in states with more abortion restrictions had higher rates of mental distress. In another study, states enforcing abortion restrictions between 1974 and 2016 had higher suicide rates in women of childbearing age in particular. But when the court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, it wasn’t making a decision grounded in science. Now we’re more than a year and a half into living with the consequences. And when it comes to women’s mental health, the fallout is following the exact pattern scientists predicted.

ICYMI: In Case You Missed It

The predominant payment model in the U.S. offers no incentive for addressing the social determinants of health, the greatest determinant of health, and only reimburses clinical care. This is not sustainable, and our collective organizations are calling for change. @FamiliesUSA pic.twitter.com/BoZya9l8Ac

— National Partnership (@NPWF) February 16, 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.