ReportWire

Tag: abortion access

  • Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio Employees Want Leadership to Take Pay Cuts to Avoid Layoffs, Staff Salary Reductions

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Mark Oprea

    A sign posted on the former Planned Parenthood in Midtown blamed the Trump administration for its closure in June.

    A union representing Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio employees is pushing back against layoffs proposed earlier this month meant to keep the reproductive care mainstay afloat after cuts in President Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill.

    Workers backed by the local arm of the Office and Professional Employees International Union want nine C-suite executives at Ohio’s Planned Parenthood branch to cut their own pay by a quarter, the union said in a press release on Thursday, to save other jobs.

    The request comes after the union met for a third time on Wednesday with PPGOH to try and handle fallout from about $10 million in federal funding cuts affecting 12 Ohio locations.

    In June, Planned Parenthood’s clinic in Midtown shut its doors due to those funding freezes. And a month later, in July, two more Ohio clinics, in Springfield and Hamilton, closed as well.

    More somber news followed. Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio would be forced to, the organization said, reduce their workforce through layoffs due to Trump. Other staffers would be forced to take salary cuts.

    The union asked, in the aftermath, why leadership didn’t take their own salary cuts.

    Leadership told Scene the math doesn’t work out.

    “The impacts of a total $10 million funding loss unfortunately cannot be solved entirely through cutting executive compensation,” Erica Wilson-Domer, president of PPGOH, told Scene in a statement.

    “Even with the reduction in force, PPGOH will continue to offer all of the services it currently does at our health centers,” she said. “This reduction does not include any health center closures.”

    Though it’s unclear exactly how many employees will be cut from the dozen remaining clinics and surgical centers, the pay drop for clinic workers that decide to stay could lead an overall drop in quality.

    Bee Grubbs, a patient navigator who helps with patient intake in one of Planned Parenthood’s Columbus clinics, worries that her own drop in salary—from $52,600 a year to $37,800—will lead to a kind of demotion of trained care in a line of work that’s already sensitive.

    As proposed to her, and others, in bargaining talks this month, Grubbs’ role in patient navigation would blend with two other departments, customer contact and centralized followup, into a newly-created Patient Access and Support Department, where new hires would make about $18 an hour.

    Not exactly what she feels her bachelor’s degree amounts to.

    “I in good faith don’t expect someone to stay and take a $15,000 pay cut,” Grubbs, 23, told Scene. “I mean, a 20-percent pay cut means I can’t pay my mortgage. For them? I don’t know.”

    Brian Pearson, the head of North Shore branch of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, told Scene it’s “disappointing” to have to witness a back-and-forth fight over pay cuts and layoffs, specifically for an organization rife with employees passionate about reproductive rights in general.

    Pearson, whose organization oversees the Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 98, which is bargaining on PPGOH employees’ behalf, frames the current impasse between PPGOH and its unionized workers as part of a growing trend.

    “It’s this common theme of workers, even those that are unionized, not having a seat at the table,” Pearson said. “And I’m definitely fed up about it.”

    No Planned Parenthood leaders, including Wilson-Domer, have agreed to take any pay cuts as of Thursday. Wilson-Domer’s predecessor made roughly $318,000 a year, according to a 2023 tax filing.

    About $2 million in “director-level and above” spending was however cut, PPGOH said in a statement, “in an effort to reduce overall costs” concerning patient care.

    Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Mark Oprea

    Source link

  • Vice president brings abortion rights tour to California as Democrats fight for House control

    Vice president brings abortion rights tour to California as Democrats fight for House control

    [ad_1]

    Vice President Kamala Harris brought her abortion rights tour to California on Monday, elevating the issue in a left-leaning state as Democrats nationwide warn that Republicans could enact a federal ban on the procedure if they take control of Congress on election day.

    At an event at the Mexican Heritage Plaza in San Jose, Harris applauded the state for having some of the nation’s strongest abortion access protections but rallied California voters to remain “vigilant” and to take the issue seriously in congressional races in November.

    “Don’t get too comfortable,” said Harris, who has also traveled to Virginia and Wisconsin to rally for reproductive rights ahead of the election. “Let’s understand: None of us can afford to sit back and think, ‘Thank God we’re in California.’”

    The vice president’s visit to the liberal Bay Area comes as Democrats hammer the issue in campaigns to flip some of the state’s Republican-held districts in order to gain control of the House of Representatives. With several potential toss-up districts, California is considered pivotal to the Democratic Party’s goal.

    Likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has taken credit for and applauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade but has stopped short of endorsing a national abortion ban. Abortion-rights advocates do not trust Trump and fear that the continuance of a Republican-majority House could risk the loss of more reproductive healthcare protections, including access to birth control.

    On Monday, Harris portrayed abortion access as a personal freedom that is merely the tip of the iceberg, warning that if empowered, Republicans could also target LGBTQ+ and voting rights. She attempted to cut through deep divisions over the issue based on religious beliefs and focused on policies in red states that do not allow abortion exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

    “One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree that the government should not be telling her what to do with her body,” Harris said to applause, calling for a majority to be elected to Congress who “simply agree it’s not the government’s right” to prohibit reproductive healthcare.

    Democratic California Sens. Alex Padilla and Laphonza Butler and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra joined Harris at Monday’s event, a show of force as Democrats focus on abortion rights in their attempt to hold the White House and win congressional control.

    Becerra, who planned to meet with OB-GYN doctors and medical students at the University of California San Francisco following Monday’s event, said that if Democrats regain control of the House and President Biden is reelected, abortion rights nationwide can be restored.

    “All I know is that we all gotta be in this one,” Becerra said. “There is nothing we can leave in our pocket.”

    Monday’s event, also attended by Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, was repeatedly disrupted by protesters calling for an Israel-Hamas cease-fire. Before being escorted out of the building, protesters chanted that Harris was “complicit in genocide”; in attempts to drown them out, her supporters chanted, “Four more years.”

    Harris and Biden, running for a second term, have framed the future of abortion as a fundamental freedom at stake in the election.

    California voters in 2022 approved a measure that enshrined reproductive rights in the state Constitution; since then, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed laws that solidify the state as a “safe haven” for doctors and patients.

    Under California law, law enforcement agencies are prohibited from helping with out-of-state abortion investigations. California has also moved to broaden the types of providers that can perform abortions and opened training to out-of-state doctors living under “hostile” laws.

    Abortion rights advocates fear that the continuance of a Republican-majority House could risk the loss of more healthcare protections. Nearly two dozen states have limited abortion access or banned it altogether.

    Last week, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California released a “burn book” that targets a dozen congressional candidates, including Reps. John Duarte (R-Modesto) and David Valadao (R-Hanford), for their voting records on abortion legislation.

    “The future of abortion is very much going to be determined over the next 12 months, including in California,” Sue Dunlap, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, told The Times in an interview.

    Dunlap said she is concerned about voter fatigue on the issue because of California’s long-held abortion rights protections.

    “We don’t get there if we don’t win in California,” Dunlap said. “We’re not living in a country or a world where California exists in and of itself. We have to take these threats seriously.”

    [ad_2]

    Mackenzie Mays

    Source link

  • Google moves to end geofence warrants, a surveillance problem it largely created | TechCrunch

    Google moves to end geofence warrants, a surveillance problem it largely created | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Google will soon allow users to store their location data on their devices rather than on Google’s servers, effectively ending a long-running surveillance practice that allowed police and law enforcement to tap Google’s vast banks of location data to identify potential criminals.

    The use of so-called “geofence warrants” have exploded in recent years, in large part thanks to the ubiquity of smartphones coupled with hungry data companies like Google vacuuming up and storing huge amounts of its users’ location data, which becomes obtainable by law enforcement requests.

    Police can use geofence warrants (also known as reverse-location warrants) to demand that Google turn over information on which users’ devices were in a particular geographic area at a certain point in time.

    But critics say geofence warrants are unconstitutional and inherently overly broad, since these demands often also include the information of entirely innocent people who were nearby at a time when a crime was committed. Even the courts cannot agree on whether geofence warrants are legal, likely setting up an eventual challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google’s announcement this week did not mention geofence warrants specifically, saying only that the move to store location data on their devices would give users’ “more control” over their data. In reality, the move forces police to seek a search warrant to access that specific device instead, rather than asking Google for the data.

    While Google is not the only company subject to geofence warrants, Google has been far the biggest collector of sensitive location data, and the first to be tapped for it.

    The practice of police tapping Google for users’ location data was first revealed in 2019. Google has long relied on its users’ location data to drive its advertising business, which during 2022 alone brought in about 80% of Google’s annual revenues, some $220 billion.

    But in reality, this surveillance technique is thought to be far wider. Law enforcement later expanded its demands for location data to other companies. Microsoft and Yahoo (which owns TechCrunch) are known to receive geofence warrants, though neither company has yet disclosed how many demands for users’ location data they receive.

    In recent years, the number of legal cases involving geofence demands have rocketed.

    Police in Minneapolis used a geofence warrant to identify individuals who attended protests following the police killing of George Floyd. The overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 prompted fears that law enforcement in states where access to abortion care is limited or seeking an abortion is illegal could use geofence warrants to identify those who seek care. Lawmakers subsequently urged Google to stop collecting location data over fears the information could be used to identify people seeking abortions.

    Although the companies have said little about how many geofence warrants they receive, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo last year backed a New York state bill that would have banned the use of geofence warrants across the state. The bill failed to advance into law.

    Google has not said how many geofence warrants it has received in recent years. Google published its most recent (and only) disclosure on the number of geofence warrants it received in 2021 following pressure to disclose the figures after mounting criticisms of the surveillance practice.

    The data showed Google received 982 geofence warrants in 2018, then 8,396 geofence warrants in 2019, and 11,554 geofence warrants in 2020 — or about one-quarter of all the legal demands that Google received. The disclosure, while limited, offered the first glimpse into the sharp rise in the number of these requests, but Google did not say how often the search giant pushes back against these legal demands for users’ location data — if at all.

    News that Google will soon move its users’ location data to their devices was met with cautious praise.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has challenged the constitutionality of geofence warrants in court, said in a blog post that “for now, at least, we’ll take this as a win.” But the EFF noted that there are other ways that Google can still turn over sensitive personal data on its users. Law enforcement uses similar legal demands, dubbed “reverse keyword” warrants, to identify Google accounts that searched for a particular keyword in time, such as prior to a crime being committed. Google has not said if it plans to close the loophole that allows police and law enforcement to serve so-called “reverse keyword” warrants for users’ search queries.

    It’s not to say that geofence warrants will fizzle out overnight. Google still retains huge banks of historical location data that police can tap into any time, up until whenever Google decides it no longer wants to keep it. And all the while tech companies store vast troves of users’ location data, they too can be subject to similar legal demands.

    But there is hope that Google shutting the door on geofence warrants — at least going forward — could significantly curtail this surveillance loophole.

    In its most recent transparency report in 2022, Apple said it received 13 geofence warrants demanding its customers’ location data, but provided no data in return. Apple said it “does not have any data to provide in response to geofence requests” as the data resides on users’ devices, which Apple says it cannot access.

    [ad_2]

    Zack Whittaker

    Source link

  • Dobbs’s Confounding Effect on Abortion Rates

    Dobbs’s Confounding Effect on Abortion Rates

    [ad_1]

    When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Diana Greene Foster made a painful prediction: She estimated that one in four women who wanted an abortion wouldn’t be able to get one. Foster, a demographer at UC San Francisco, told me that she’d based her expectation on her knowledge of how abortion rates decline when women lose insurance coverage or have to travel long distances after clinics close.

    And she was well aware of what this statistic meant. She’d spent 10 years following 1,000 women recruited from clinic waiting rooms. Some got an abortion, but others were turned away. The “turnaways” were more likely to suffer serious health consequences, live in poverty, and stay in contact with violent partners. With nearly 1 million abortions performed in America each year, Foster worried that hundreds of thousands of women would be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies. “Having a baby before they’re ready kind of knocks people off their life course,” she told me.

    But now, more than a year removed from the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Foster has revised her estimate. After seeing early reports of women traveling across state lines and ordering pills online, she now estimates that about 5 percent of women who want an abortion cannot get one. Indeed, two recent reports show that although Dobbs upended abortion access in America, many women have nevertheless found ways to end their pregnancy. A study by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, signals that national abortion rates have not meaningfully fallen since 2020. Instead, they seem to have gone up a bit. A report released this week by the Society of Family Planning, another pro-abortion-rights group, shows that an increase in abortions in states that allow the procedure more than offset the post-Dobbs drop-off in states that closed down clinics.

    Some of this increase may be a result of trends that predate Dobbs: Abortion rates in the U.S. have been going up since 2017. But the reports suggest that the increase may also be due to travel by women who live in red states and the expanded access to abortion that many blue states enacted after the ruling. Still, it is not yet clear exactly how much each of these factors is contributing to the observed increase—and how many women who want an abortion are still unable to get one.

    Alison Norris, a co-chair of the Society of Family Planning study, told me that she fears that the public will “become complacent” if they see the likely increase in abortion rates and believe that everyone has access. “Feeling like the problem isn’t really that big of a deal because the numbers seem to have returned to what they were pre-Dobbs is a misunderstanding of the data,” she said.


    It seems illogical that more than a dozen states would ban abortion and national rates would hardly change. But even as red states have choked off access, blue states have widened it. And the data show that women have flooded the remaining clinics and ordered abortion pills from pharmacies that ship across the country. More than half of all abortions are done using medication, a pattern that began even before the Dobbs decision.

    “It just doesn’t work to make abortion illegal,” Linda Prine, a doctor at Mount Sinai Hospital, told me. “There may be some people who are having babies that they didn’t want to have, but when you shift resources all over the place, and all kinds of other avenues open up, there’s also people who are getting abortions that might not have gotten them otherwise.”

    With mail-order abortion pills, “it’s this weird moment where abortion might, ironically, be more available than it’s ever been,” Rachel Rebouché, an expert in abortion law and the dean of the Temple University Beasley School of Law, told me.

    The Guttmacher Institute sampled abortion clinics to estimate the change in abortion counts between the first halves of 2020 and 2023. Areas surrounding states with post-Roe bans saw their abortion numbers surge over that period of time. In Colorado, which is near South Dakota, a state with a ban, abortions increased by about 89 percent, compared with an 8 percent rise in the prior three-year period. New Mexico saw abortions climb by 220 percent. (For comparison, before Dobbs, the state recorded a 27 percent hike from 2017 to 2020.) Even states in solidly blue regions saw their abortion rates grow over the three-year interval from 2020 to 2023: Guttmacher estimates that California’s abortion clinics provided 16 percent more abortions, and New York’s about 18 percent more.

    Some shifts predated the court’s intervention. After a decades-long decline, abortions began ticking upward around 2017. In 2020, they increased by 8 percent compared with 2017. The researchers I spoke with for this story told me that they couldn’t point to a decisive cause for the shift that started six years ago; they suggested rising child-care costs and Trump-era cuts to Medicaid coverage as possible factors. But the rise in abortion rates reflects a broader change: Women seem to want fewer children than they used to. Caitlin Myers, a professor at Middlebury College, told me that abortion rates might have increased even more if the Court hadn’t reversed Roe. “It looks like more people just want abortions than did a few years ago,” she said. “What we don’t know is, would they have gone up even more if there weren’t people trapped in Texas or Louisiana?”

    One of the most significant factors in maintaining post-Roe abortion access dates from the latter half of 2021. As the coronavirus pandemic clobbered the health-care system, the FDA suspended its requirement that women pick up abortion medications in person. A few months later, it made the switch permanent. The timing was opportune: People became accustomed to receiving all of their medical care through virtual appointments at the same time that they could get abortion pills delivered to their doorstep, Rebouché told me. People no longer have to travel to a clinic and cross anti-abortion picket lines. But access to mifepristone, one of the most commonly used drugs for medication abortions, is under threat. After an anti-abortion group challenged the FDA’s approval of the drug, a federal court instated regulations that would require women to visit a doctor three times to get the pills, making access much more difficult. The Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear an appeal, and has frozen the 2021 rules in place while it decides.

    But paradoxically, several of the factors that may have contributed to the rise in abortion rates seem to have sprung directly from the Dobbs decision. In the year since the ruling, six blue states have enacted laws that allow practitioners to ship abortion pills anywhere, even to deep-red Texas. Although these laws haven’t yet been litigated to test whether they’re truly impenetrable, doctors have relied on them to mail medication across the country. Aid Access, an online service that operates outside the formal health-care system, receives requests for about 6,500 abortion pills a month. (The pills cost $150, but Aid Access sends them for free to people who can’t pay.) Demand for Aid Access pills in states that ban or restrict medication abortion has mushroomed since the Dobbs decision, rising from an average of about 82 requests per day before Dobbs to 214 after. The Guttmacher report doesn’t count abortions that take place in this legally fuzzy space, suggesting that actual abortion figures could be higher.

    As the Supreme Court revoked the constitutional right to an abortion and turned the issue back to the states, it also hardened the resolve of abortion-rights supporters. In the five months after Roe fell, the National Network of Abortion Funds received four times the money from donations than it got in all of 2020. People often donate as states encroach on abortion rights. In many cases, they bankrolled people’s travel out of ban states. Community networks also gained experience in shuttling people out of state to get abortions. “There’s definitely been innovation in the face of abortion bans,” Abigail Aiken, who documents abortions that occur outside of the formal health-care system, told me.

    Some researchers believe that the Dobbs decision has actually convinced more women to get abortions. Abortion-rights advocacy groups have erected highway billboards that promise Abortion is ok. Public opinion has tilted in favor of abortion rights. Ushma Upadhyay, a professor at UC San Francisco, told me that California’s rising abortion rates cannot all be due to people traveling from states that ban abortion. “It’s also got to be an increase among Californians,” she said. “It’s just a lot of attention, destigmatization, and funding that has been made available. Even before Dobbs, there was a lot of unmet need for abortion in this country.”

    Abortion used to be a topic that was “talked about in the shadows,” Greer Donley, an expert in abortion law and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, told me. “Dobbs kind of blew that up.” Still, she believes that it’s unlikely that people are getting significantly more abortions simply because of changes within blue states. Just as obstacles don’t seem to have stopped people from seeking abortions, efforts that moderately expand access are unlikely to lead people to get an abortion, she said.

    The people I spoke with emphasized that even though overall abortion rates might be going up, not everyone who wants the procedure can get it. People who don’t speak English or Spanish, who don’t have internet access, or who are in jail still have trouble getting abortions. “What I foresee is a bunch of Black women being stuck pregnant who didn’t want to be pregnant, in a state where it’s incredibly dangerous to be Black and pregnant,” Laurie Bertram Roberts, a founder of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund, told me.

    Bertram Roberts’s fund used to provide travel stipends of up to $250. Now women need three times that. Most people travel from Mississippi to a clinic in Carbondale, Illinois. The trip takes two days—48 hours that women must take off work and find child care for. “If you are in the middle of Texas, and you have to travel to Illinois, even if funds covered all the costs, to say that abortion is more accessible for that person seems callous and wrong,” Donley told me.

    Many women spend weeks waiting for an abortion. “It is excruciating to be carrying a pregnancy that one knows they’re planning to end,” Upadhyay said. And although studies show that abortion pills are safe, women who take them can bleed for up to three weeks, and they may worry that they’ll be prosecuted if they seek help at a hospital. Only two states—Nevada and South Carolina—explicitly criminalize women who give themselves an abortion (and few women have been charged under the laws), but the legislation contributes to a climate of fear.

    More than a year out from the Dobbs decision, the grainy picture of abortion access is coming into focus. With the benefit of distance, the story seems not to be solely one of diminished access, widespread surveillance, and forced births, as the ruling’s opponents had warned. For most Americans, abortion might be more accessible than it’s ever been. But for another, more vulnerable group, abortion is a far-off privilege. “If I lived in my birth state—I was born in Minnesota—my work would be one hundred times easier,” Bertram Roberts told me, later adding, “I think about that a lot, about how the two states that bookend my life are so different.”

    [ad_2]

    Rose Horowitch

    Source link