ReportWire

Tag: Abortion

  • Tommy Tuberville Says Coaching College Football Was Just as Taxing as Leading the Military

    Tommy Tuberville Says Coaching College Football Was Just as Taxing as Leading the Military

    [ad_1]

    Senator Tommy Tuberville does not have a lot of fans these days—on either side of the aisle—thanks to his ridiculous blockade on military nominations and promotions, which he continues to hold up because he’s mad about reproductive rights. On Wednesday, for instance, members of his own party called his now monthslong stunt “a national security suicide mission” that is doing “great damage to our military.” And after comments he made on Thursday, he’s unlikely to convince more people to come over to his side! 

    Speaking to reporters about the apparent heart attack suffered on Sunday by Marine Corps commandant General Eric Smith—which Army veteran and Senate Armed Services Committee chair Jack Reed said he believed was in part due to being overworked as a result of Tuberville’s blockade—the senator from Alabama scoffed at the idea that he had anything to do with it. “The Marine Corps commandant probably got 2,000 people working for him,” Tuberville said. “Jack Reed blamed me for his heart attack. Come on, give me a break. This guy is going to work 18-20 hours a day, no matter what. That’s what we do. I did that for years.”

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    You might be under the impression that Tuberville actually served in the military, but that is not the case. In fact, Tuberville has no military experience whatsoever. When he said, “I did that for years,” he was presumably referring to his job as a college football coach, which he held before becoming a senator in 2021. (He has nevertheless also said things like “there is nobody more military than me.”) As Insider notes, while Tuberville was coaching football, Smith—who Reed says was doing two jobs at once at the time of his heart attack—was earning a Purple Heart. 

    Since being elected in 2020, Tubverville has made a name for himself not just as a guy who has left hundreds of military jobs in limbo, but as an idiot and apologist for white nationalists. Shortly after his victory over Doug Jones, he claimed that the three branches of government were “the House, the Senate, and the executive” and that World War II was a fight against socialism. Later, he insisted that white nationalists are not racist before begrudgingly reversing course

    Mike Johnson says he’s good friends with Marjorie Taylor Greene, which pretty much tells you all you need to know

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Do Republican spending cuts threaten federal HIV funding? Some programs, yes.

    PolitiFact – Do Republican spending cuts threaten federal HIV funding? Some programs, yes.

    [ad_1]

    Are Republicans threatening to stop spending federal money to end one of the world’s most pressing public health epidemics? That’s what President Joe Biden said during a dinner an LGBTQ+ advocacy group hosted.

    “In the United States Congress, extreme MAGA Republicans are trying to undo virtually every bit of progress we’ve made,” Biden said Oct. 14 at the Human Rights Campaign event. “They’re trying to wipe out federal funding to end the HIV epidemic.”

    Programs to treat HIV and fight its spread have enjoyed bipartisan funding support in recent years, experts said, so Biden’s portrayal signals a significant departure.

    When we asked the White House what Biden was referring to, it pointed us to reports of budget recommendations from House Republicans that call for large cuts to the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, a Trump administration-era program designed to reduce new HIV infections in the U.S., as well as other programs.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a separate spending plan. The recommendations will be subject to negotiation as the House and Senate face a Nov. 17 deadline to pass another spending bill. 

    We found that although Republicans are recommending significant cuts to HIV prevention efforts across a number of public health agencies, the proposal keeps core funding intact.  Meanwhile, political differences are eroding bipartisan support for global HIV-prevention funding. 

    Despite great strides in prevention and treatment since HIV was first reported in the U.S. in the 1980s, HIV remains at epidemic levels in the U.S. today, with approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV and around 30,000 to 35,000 new infections each year. Experts said cases are rising in the South and in rural areas, and new infection statistics show it is disproportionately affecting Black and Hispanic communities.

    What are the proposed cuts?

    AIDS Budget & Appropriations Coalition, a group of more than 100 public health advocacy organizations that track changes in HIV-related federal spending, said a majority of the proposed cuts to domestic HIV funding stem from House Republicans’ effort to eliminate the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

    The program started in 2019 with the goal of reducing new HIV infections in the U.S. by 75% by 2025 and 90% by 2030. The program so far worked regionally, targeting areas that have the highest rates of HIV cases for funding. 

    In 2023, about $573 million was allocated for the program across various agencies, according to KFF’s funding tracker. 

    • $220 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    • $165 million to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. (It was named for a 13-year-old diagnosed with HIV in 1984 and is overseen by the Health Resources and Services Administration.)

    • $5 million to the Indian Health Service.

    • $26 million to the National Institutes of Health for research. 

    • $157.3 million to community health centers, which treated around 200,000 HIV patients annually.

    The program lags its goals as it approaches the 2025 benchmark. “It’s well designed, well planned, it has targets that makes sense,” said Jeffrey Sturchio, a lead researcher on a Center for Strategic and International Studies report. 

    Sturchio said the problem is not a fault of design, but funding, adding, “Congress has never fully funded the initiative.”

    Sturchio pointed to a range of local and state “bureaucratic hurdles.” Jurisdictions that have pulled together sufficient resources have seen “tremendous progress,” he said, and overall indicators seem to be moving in the right direction. 

    But COVID-19 reduced HIV testing and may have diverted public health efforts, CDC administrators said. PolitiFact partner KFF Health News reported in April that stakeholders saw progress but worried that it won’t be enough to make the 2030 deadline. 

    Democrats appear to share this concern. The spending bill proposed by the Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee maintained or slightly increased funding levels to all HIV-related programs. The committee requested more data about the program, describing its “lack of quantifiable data showing outcomes.”

    The House has not yet passed the bill out of committee. We know of some proposed cuts from the bill, which the Republican-led House Appropriations Subcommittee released in July.

    It outlines a $1.6 billion cut to the CDC, including a $220 million reduction in “HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention” and a $238.5 million cut from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. The Ryan White program provides medical care and support services to low-income HIV patients and serves more than half of those diagnosed in the U.S.

    The bill also proposes cutting funding to the Minority HIV/AIDS fund by more than half — from $60 million to $28 million. According to hiv.gov, the fund supports prevention and care projects targeting disparities that affect communities of color. 

    Additional details about how these cuts could affect programs are detailed in a committee report that has not been made public. PolitiFact and some advocacy organizations obtained copies of the report, but the House Appropriations committee did not respond to our questions about it. The report we saw recommended cutting all funding for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

    And House Democrats, advocacy organizations and PolitiFact’s partners at KFF Health News, have each reported that the Ryan White program and CDC cuts result from a plan to eliminate the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

    “If they cut funding, it’s going to have a dramatic and draconian impact on the ability of all of the people who are working in these jurisdictions to improve public health,” said Sturchio, the researcher.

    Although the cuts would be dramatic, experts said that they would not eliminate all domestic HIV funding.

    “There is certainly a demonstration and a commitment to some of the core HIV programs, but there are millions of dollars of proposed cuts in other areas,” said Lindsey Dawson, associate director for HIV policy at KFF, a policy research center. “These cuts would have a meaningful impact on the ability of programs to provide life-saving interventions for both HIV care and treatment, as well as prevention.”

    The cuts would mean a 16%cut to the CDC’s division of STD prevention, a 9% cut to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, and a 53% cut to the Minority HIV/AIDS Fund from fiscal year 2023 to 2024. 

    These funding cuts are only proposals. They require a vote from the full appropriations committee, would have to pass the House and would need to be negotiated with a Democratic-controlled Senate.

    “We’ve heard for a long time that HIV is a bipartisan issue. But what some people forget, is that that bipartisanship was hard fought for over the first decade of the HIV epidemic,” Dawson said.

    Other challenges to HIV/AIDS spending

    The U.S. commitment to global HIV prevention, meanwhile, is also under scrutiny. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., challenged reauthorizing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR, without first making some changes. Started in 2003 by President George W. Bush, the program distributes funds in more than 50 countries for HIV testing, prevention, treatment and medications. It also strengthens healthcare systems to fight AIDS. 

    Funding for the program has grown over the past 20 years, totaling more than $110 billion. The program reported 25 million lives saved by medical intervention. 

    Smith, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Global Health, has expressed concerns that money is being given to nongovernmental organizations that support abortion-rights and access.   

    U.S. law prohibits the direct use of overseas funding to provide abortions or lobby for access to  abortions. This has been the case since 1973. However, organizations that receive U.S. funding can do so with their own non-U.S. funding.

    An official from the U.S. State Department, which runs the program, confirmed to PolitiFact that PEPFAR is legally restricted from funding abortion or lobbying for abortion access; the official cited the training of staff and partners and the monitoring of procedures to ensure compliance. 

    Other anti-abortion groups have favored a “Mexico City Policy,” which has required foreign nongovernmental organizations to certify that they would not perform or promote abortion with funds from any source to be eligible for U.S. government funding. Trump applied the policy to PEPFAR, but Biden rescinded it.

    The failure to reauthorize PEPFAR would not eliminate the program, and Congress can continue to fund the program without reauthorization, but it could cause some provisions to lapse over the next few years.

    The lack of a reauthorization would have significant symbolic impact, said Kellie Moss, KFF’s associate director of global health and HIV policy. “It could make the program more vulnerable during funding discussions without a clear signal of bipartisan support.”

    Although reauthorization is being held up, funding has progressed. On Sept. 28, the House passed a State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which would fund PEPFAR for another year but implement a Mexico City-like policy provision on all global health funding. This bill would also extend the lapsing provisions for another year.

    Our ruling

    Biden said that Republicans in Congress are “trying to wipe out federal funding to end the HIV epidemic.”

    A subcommittee of House Republicans have proposed cutting some HIV prevention programs  anywhere from 53% to 9% in fiscal 2024, depending on the program.

    A committee’s draft report cited by advocacy and policy groups shows these cuts stem from the elimination of the Trump-era Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, although the committee did not respond to our questions about that.

    Taken together, these cuts would not eliminate — or “wipe out” — all federal domestic HIV spending, but they do represent a significant cut.

    Meanwhile, the House has not moved ahead to reauthorize PEPFAR, which supplies U.S. dollars for global HIV prevention, over Republican concerns about where organizations that receive the money stand on abortion access. But the House has passed one year of PEPFAR funding with some conditions about how it is distributed, which it can do without reauthorizing the program.

    Biden’s statement is partially accurate in that significant funding cuts have been proposed by House Republicans, but he exaggerates by saying these efforts would “wipe out” federal funding.

    We rate this claim Half True.

    KFF Health News Reporter Sam Whitehead contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • An Ohio amendment serves as a testing ground for statewide abortion fights expected in 2024

    An Ohio amendment serves as a testing ground for statewide abortion fights expected in 2024

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — Abortion access is expected to play a central role in the 2024 elections. The preview comes next week, when Ohio voters decide whether to enshrine reproductive rights in their state Constitution.

    The amendment is the only abortion question on any state’s ballot this year, a spotlight that has generated intense attention from national groups and made Ohio a testing ground for fresh campaign messaging — some of it misleading. The amendment has drawn more than $60 million in combined spending so far.

    Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said Ohio offers a vital proving ground heading into next year’s presidential election, when Democrats hope the abortion issue can energize supporters in contests up and down the ballot. Initiatives seeking to protect access could be on the ballot across the country, including in the presidential swing states of Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania.

    “When we’re able to see how our messaging impacts independents and Republicans and persuades them that this fundamental freedom is important to protect in Ohio, that’s going to be something that we can implement looking at 2024,” she said.

    The battleground on abortion shifted to the states last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its Roe v. Wade decision, erasing federal abortion protections that had been in place for half a century. Since then, voters in six states — California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont — have either supported measures protecting abortion rights or rejected efforts aimed at eroding access.

    Kelsey Pritchard, state public affairs director for the anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said the outcomes in 2022 offered lessons that the anti-abortion movement has implemented in Ohio through more coalition-building and stronger messaging.

    Abortion opponents, she said, “will apply those weapons and learning in other states going forward.”

    Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose advanced ballot language for the Ohio amendment that its supporters said was misleading, while GOP Attorney General Dave Yost took the unconventional step of producing his own ”legal analysis” of the amendment. Its supporters said those actions by top state officials could cost them votes.

    But like the anti-abortion movement itself, Ohio’s Republicans have not been in lockstep on the issue.

    The GOP-led Ohio Senate has used its website to spread misleading claims about the amendment even as Gov. Mike DeWine has made the rounds of TV stations pledging that his party will pass a reasonable alternative if voters defeat the measure. For the first time in his 46-year political career, DeWine now says he would support exceptions for rape and incest in any future abortion legislation if the measure fails.

    The governor has allied with the Ohio Catholic Conference, which is running a campaign through its churches to defeat the amendment, which is on the ballot as Issue 1. Protect Women Ohio, the campaign against it, also has generated support from some Black faith leaders.

    Supporters have answered with an ad featuring the senior minister of First Congregational Church in Columbus, who called abortion a private matter and said “government needs to stay out of family decision-making.”

    The Ohio amendment would guarantee an individual’s right “to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.” It expressly permits the state to regulate abortions after fetal viability, as determined by an attending physician, as long as any laws regulating the procedure after that point provide exceptions for the life and health of the woman.

    Its supporters include Democrats in the state, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and a bipartisan coalition of labor, faith and community groups. They portray the measure — one of the most broadly worded so far — as a way to enshrine Roe-era abortion rights in a one-time bellwether state that has turned increasingly Republican and has passed some of the nation’s toughest restrictions on the procedure.

    That includes a law currently held up by legal challenges that bans most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, before many women know they’re pregnant. That law makes no exceptions for rape or incest.

    “This is the most conservative state to date where we’re pushing for proactive state constitutional amendments,” said Carolyn Ehrlich, senior campaign strategist at the ACLU.

    Opponents, including state Republicans, the Center for Christian Virtue and Ohio Right to Life, say the amendment provides too much access to abortion and does so too late into pregnancy. They question whether state lawmakers could pass any abortion restrictions at all that would pass constitutional muster if voters approve the amendment.

    “This is more than just a pro-choice or pro-life statement,” said Megan Wold, a former deputy Ohio solicitor general working with Protect Women Ohio. “It is an up or down vote, but it’s an up or down vote on very particular language that’s going to have a real impact on the way that Ohio can regulate abortion in the future.”

    Protect Women Ohio’s interest in persuading independent and politically moderate voters is about the math, since public support for some form of abortion rights has remained well over the 50% mark in the U.S. for years. AP VoteCast polling last year found that 59% of Ohio voters say abortion should generally be legal.

    Peter Range, executive director for Ohio Right to Life, said strong turnout and enthusiasm at the March for Life held at the Ohio Statehouse last month gave him “great hope” for victory on Tuesday.

    He said Issue 1 goes too far in limiting the state “and I think once most Ohioans realize that, they’re going to reject it.”

    The Issue 1 campaign, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, is working to appeal to voters across party lines with a message focused on bodily autonomy and freedom from government intervention.

    Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of URGE and a member of the coalition supporting the amendment, said messaging similar to Ohio’s was effective across party lines in deeply Republican Kansas, which surprised the nation when it became the first state to protect the right to an abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

    “I think there’s a very progressive value in being able to maintain our liberty, maintain our freedom, have the government not tell us what to do with our bodies,” she said.

    McGuire said supporters of abortion rights also were energized by an August special election in which the GOP-led state Legislature advanced a proposal that would have set a 60% supermajority requirement for passing future constitutional amendments. The measure failed badly, and she said it soured many voters on trusting their elected representatives.

    Turnout in the election that concludes Tuesday is expected to be robust, building on the enthusiasm from the summer, organizers say. Local election officials anticipate 40% to 50% of registered voters will participate, according to the Ohio Association of Election Officials. That’s higher than a typical off-year November election and up from the 39% turnout in August.

    “Ohio voters really know what’s at stake here, because they’ve seen the incredible lengths that the Ohio government will go to to interfere in people’s lives,” McGuire said. “The August election laid bare the strategy of the anti-abortion movement — which is that they understand that the people oppose abortion bans, and so it is now their strategy to put a stranglehold on democracy to try to thwart democratic efforts to support abortion access.”

    ___

    Fernando reported from Chicago.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • “It’s About Controlling Women”: Veterans Reject Tommy Tuberville’s Antiabortion Crusade

    “It’s About Controlling Women”: Veterans Reject Tommy Tuberville’s Antiabortion Crusade

    [ad_1]

    Tuberville, who never served in any branch of the US military, has drawn criticism from his Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and some argue that he is hamstringing the US military by sending a message of disarray and unreadiness to enemies. Amid the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East, calls for him to abandon his stance have only grown louder in recent weeks, including a push this week led by Republicans Dan Sullivan, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, Todd Young, and Mitt Romney. Tuberville, meanwhile, has shown no signs of backing off. In a remarkable scene on the Senate floor on Wednesday night, Republican senators went toe to toe with Tuberville and proposed individual votes on 61 officers, presented by name. Over the course of more than four hours, Tuberville denied each one. “Xi Jinping is loving this. So is [Vladimir] Putin,” Sullivan reportedly said during the standoff, a reference to the leaders of China and Russia, respectively. “How dumb can we be, man?”

    “I’m trying to keep the White House from playing dictator along with the Pentagon,” Tuberville previously told Fox News Digital. “Abortion is the number one issue in our country in our lifetime when it comes to social issues, and the American people need to have a say so now.” Tuberville insists that Democrats need to introduce their own bill on the Pentagon policy and hold a vote, but Democrats say the ball is in the GOP’s court. “The onus is on Republican senators to prevail on Senator Tuberville and get him to back off his reckless pursuit,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

    The daughter of an airman, Sweatt was eager to serve. But reflecting on her experience—which she said included harassment, assault, and discrimination—she isn’t sure if she would be so eager to serve today. “Women came into the service because we needed to fill a gap, and we filled those gaps very well and efficiently, and we earned our place…. It’s really sad because the United States military would not be as strong, as great as it is, as advanced as it is today had it not been for the women that flooded the ranks—and we’re constantly being shat upon and slapped in the face for it,” she told me. “It feels a lot like just being used.”

    When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced that all service members would have access to reproductive care. Under the policy, the Department of Defense does not fund abortion care; its facilities will only perform abortions in instances of rape or incest and if the mother’s life is at risk. Rather, the policy allows service members “the ability to request an administrative absence from their normal duty station to access non-covered reproductive health care without being charged leave.” Additionally, “travel and transportation allowances may be authorized for service members and dependents to travel to access non-covered reproductive health care.” 

    It is this policy that Tuberville takes issue with.

    In the post-Roe landscape, accessing reproductive care has become a challenge to countless individuals who reside in states where conservative lawmakers have imposed abortion bans. In many cases, people who are pregnant must take time off work and travel extensive distances across state lines to find care. For military service members the challenges can be even steeper. With little say in where they are stationed, individuals seeking reproductive care can find themselves in states where it is limited at best, entirely unavailable at worst.

    Courtesy of Carrie Frail.

    [ad_2]

    Abigail Tracy

    Source link

  • Ohio amendment serves as test for statewide abortion fights expected in 2024

    Ohio amendment serves as test for statewide abortion fights expected in 2024

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — Abortion access is expected to play a central role in the 2024 elections. The preview comes next week, when Ohio voters decide whether to enshrine reproductive rights in their state Constitution.

    The amendment is the only abortion question on any state’s ballot this year, a spotlight that has generated intense attention from national groups and made Ohio a testing ground for fresh campaign messaging — some of it misleading. The amendment has drawn more than $60 million in combined spending so far.

    Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said Ohio offers a vital proving ground heading into next year’s presidential election, when Democrats hope the abortion issue can energize supporters in contests up and down the ballot. Initiatives seeking to protect access could be on the ballot across the country, including in the presidential swing states of Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania.

    “When we’re able to see how our messaging impacts independents and Republicans and persuades them that this fundamental freedom is important to protect in Ohio, that’s going to be something that we can implement looking at 2024,” she said.

    The battleground on abortion shifted to the states last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its Roe v. Wade decision, erasing federal abortion protections that had been in place for half a century. Since then, voters in six states — California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont — have either supported measures protecting abortion rights or rejected efforts aimed at eroding access.

    Kelsey Pritchard, state public affairs director for the anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said the outcomes in 2022 offered lessons that the anti-abortion movement has implemented in Ohio through more coalition-building and stronger messaging.

    Abortion opponents, she said, “will apply those weapons and learning in other states going forward.”

    Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose advanced ballot language for the Ohio amendment that its supporters said was misleading, while GOP Attorney General Dave Yost took the unconventional step of producing his own ”legal analysis” of the amendment. Its supporters said those actions by top state officials could cost them votes.

    But like the anti-abortion movement itself, Ohio’s Republicans have not been in lockstep on the issue.

    The GOP-led Ohio Senate has used its website to spread misleading claims about the amendment even as Gov. Mike DeWine has made the rounds of TV stations pledging that his party will pass a reasonable alternative if voters defeat the measure. For the first time in his 46-year political career, DeWine now says he would support exceptions for rape and incest in any future abortion legislation if the measure fails.

    The governor has allied with the Ohio Catholic Conference, which is running a campaign through its churches to defeat the amendment, which is on the ballot as Issue 1. Protect Women Ohio, the campaign against it, also has generated support from some Black faith leaders.

    Supporters have answered with an ad featuring the senior minister of First Congregational Church in Columbus, who called abortion a private matter and said “government needs to stay out of family decision-making.”

    The Ohio amendment would guarantee an individual’s right “to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.” It expressly permits the state to regulate abortions after fetal viability, as determined by an attending physician, as long as any laws regulating the procedure after that point provide exceptions for the life and health of the woman.

    Its supporters include Democrats in the state, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and a bipartisan coalition of labor, faith and community groups. They portray the measure — one of the most broadly worded so far — as a way to enshrine Roe-era abortion rights in a one-time bellwether state that has turned increasingly Republican and has passed some of the nation’s toughest restrictions on the procedure.

    That includes a law currently held up by legal challenges that bans most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, before many women know they’re pregnant. That law makes no exceptions for rape or incest.

    “This is the most conservative state to date where we’re pushing for proactive state constitutional amendments,” said Carolyn Ehrlich, senior campaign strategist at the ACLU.

    Opponents, including state Republicans, the Center for Christian Virtue and Ohio Right to Life, say the amendment provides too much access to abortion and does so too late into pregnancy. They question whether state lawmakers could pass any abortion restrictions at all that would pass constitutional muster if voters approve the amendment.

    “This is more than just a pro-choice or pro-life statement,” said Megan Wold, a former deputy Ohio solicitor general working with Protect Women Ohio. “It is an up or down vote, but it’s an up or down vote on very particular language that’s going to have a real impact on the way that Ohio can regulate abortion in the future.”

    Protect Women Ohio’s interest in persuading independent and politically moderate voters is about the math, since public support for some form of abortion rights has remained well over the 50% mark in the U.S. for years. AP VoteCast polling last year found that 59% of Ohio voters say abortion should generally be legal.

    Peter Range, executive director for Ohio Right to Life, said strong turnout and enthusiasm at the March for Life held at the Ohio Statehouse last month gave him “great hope” for victory on Tuesday.

    He said Issue 1 goes too far in limiting the state “and I think once most Ohioans realize that, they’re going to reject it.”

    The Issue 1 campaign, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, is working to appeal to voters across party lines with a message focused on bodily autonomy and freedom from government intervention.

    Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of URGE and a member of the coalition supporting the amendment, said messaging similar to Ohio’s was effective across party lines in deeply Republican Kansas, which surprised the nation when it became the first state to protect the right to an abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

    “I think there’s a very progressive value in being able to maintain our liberty, maintain our freedom, have the government not tell us what to do with our bodies,” she said.

    McGuire said supporters of abortion rights also were energized by an August special election in which the GOP-led state Legislature advanced a proposal that would have set a 60% supermajority requirement for passing future constitutional amendments. The measure failed badly, and she said it soured many voters on trusting their elected representatives.

    Turnout in the election that concludes Tuesday is expected to be robust, building on the enthusiasm from the summer, organizers say. Local election officials anticipate 40% to 50% of registered voters will participate, according to the Ohio Association of Election Officials. That’s higher than a typical off-year November election and up from the 39% turnout in August.

    “Ohio voters really know what’s at stake here, because they’ve seen the incredible lengths that the Ohio government will go to to interfere in people’s lives,” McGuire said. “The August election laid bare the strategy of the anti-abortion movement — which is that they understand that the people oppose abortion bans, and so it is now their strategy to put a stranglehold on democracy to try to thwart democratic efforts to support abortion access.”

    ___

    Fernando reported from Chicago.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As vacancies grow, Senate Democrats work to circumvent Tuberville’s blockade on military nominees

    As vacancies grow, Senate Democrats work to circumvent Tuberville’s blockade on military nominees

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are trying a new workaround to confirm hundreds of military officers blocked by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, ten months after the Alabama Republican first said he would object to the nominations over a Pentagon abortion policy.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor Wednesday that the Senate will consider a resolution in the near future that would allow the quick confirmation of the nearly 400 officers up for promotion or nominated for another senior job. The Senate is currently at a stalemate on the nominations because Tuberville is objecting to the routine process of confirming the nominations all at once by unanimous consent, and voting on them individually could monopolize weeks or months of the Senate’s time.

    Schumer separately moved to hold votes as soon as this week on three top Pentagon officers affected by the holds — Adm. Lisa Franchetti to be the chief of naval operations, Gen. David Allvin to be chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force and Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney to serve as assistant commandant for the U.S. Marine Corps.

    The Senate maneuvers come amid a new war in Israel and as members of both parties are growing increasingly frustrated with Tuberville’s holds. Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican, had gathered enough signatures to force a vote on Franchetti and Allvin and spoke out in frustration about the issue at the weekly GOP lunch on Tuesday, according to a person familiar with Sullivan’s comments who requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting.

    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said after the lunch that the holds are “a bad idea” and said he’d tried to convince the Alabama Republican to express his opposition some other way.

    The new efforts to get around Tuberville come after an announcement by the Marine Corps that Gen. Eric Smith, the commandant, has been hospitalized. Smith was confirmed to the top job last month, but had been holding down two high-level posts — commandant and assistant commandant — for several months because Mahoney’s nomination for the No. 2 job has been held up by Tuberville. Smith himself was blunt about the demands of serving as both assistant commandant and acting commandant for months in the wake of Gen. David Berger’s retirement after four years as the top Marine.

    In public remarks in early September, Smith described his grueling schedule as he juggled the strategic and oversight responsibilities of commandant and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the personnel and management duties of the No. 2 job. “It is not sustainable,” Smith said. “What doesn’t stop is the clock. The adversary doesn’t take a pause.”

    With Smith hospitalized and no confirmed assistant commandant, Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl is performing the duties of commandant. Heckl, who is the deputy commandant for combat development, can’t serve as an “acting commandant” because he is not currently in a Senate-confirmed position. As a result, he doesn’t have all of the power or authority that a confirmed officer would have.

    Schumer said Smith’s sudden medical emergency is “precisely the kind of avoidable emergency that Sen. Tuberville has provoked though his reckless holds.”

    Tuberville has shown no signs of lifting the blockade since he first announced it in February. Despite several high-level vacancies, he has said he will continue to hold up the other nominations unless the Pentagon ends its policy of paying for travel when a service member has to go out of state to get an abortion or other reproductive care. The Biden administration instituted the policy after the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion and some states have limited or banned the procedure.

    The Alabama senator has challenged Schumer to put each individual nomination on the floor, but Democrats have said that could take months to finish and delay other Senate priorities.

    Democrats have also been hoping to force Tuberville’s hand as the number of stalled nominations has grown. “There’s an old saying in the military, leave no one behind,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed said in July.

    But that strategy has become more difficult as months have passed, and as Tuberville has dug in.

    “Every day that Sen. Tuberville continues his blanket holds our military preparedness is degraded,” Schumer said.

    A host of military officers have spoken out about the damage of the delays for service members. While Tuberville’s holds are focused on all general and flag officers, they carry career impacts on the military’s younger rising officers. Until each general or admiral is confirmed, it blocks an opportunity for a more junior officer to rise.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Idaho’s strict abortion ban forcing doctors to leave the state

    Idaho’s strict abortion ban forcing doctors to leave the state

    [ad_1]

    Idaho’s strict abortion ban forcing doctors to leave the state – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Idaho’s restrictive abortion ban is fueling a maternal care exodus. More than half of the state’s high-risk OB/GYNs are expected to be gone by the end of the year. Adriana Diaz has the story.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion restrictions in Russia spark outrage as country takes conservative turn

    Abortion restrictions in Russia spark outrage as country takes conservative turn

    [ad_1]

    TALLINN, Estonia — Despite its last-minute scheduling, the meeting at a bookstore in Russia’s westernmost city of Kaliningrad still drew about 60 people, with many outraged by a lawmaker’s efforts to ban abortions in local private clinics.

    The weeknight turnout surprised and heartened Dasha Yakovleva, one of the organizers, amid recent crackdowns on political activism under President Vladimir Putin.

    “Right now, there is no room for political action in Russia. The only place left is our kitchens,” Yakovleva, co-founder of the Feminitive Community women’s group, told The Associated Press. “And here, it was a public place, well-known in Kaliningrad, and everyone spoke out openly about how they see this measure, why they think it’s unjustified, inappropriate.”

    Although abortion is still legal and widely available in Russia, recent attempts to restrict it have touched a nerve across the increasingly conservative country. Activists are urging supporters to make official complaints, circulating online petitions and even staging small protests.

    While only a proposal for now in Kaliningrad, private clinics elsewhere have begun to stop providing abortions. Nationwide, the Health Ministry has drawn up talking points for doctors to discourage women from terminating their pregnancies, and new regulations soon will make many emergency contraceptives virtually unavailable and drive up the cost of others.

    “It’s clear that there is a gradual erosion of abortion access and rights in Russia, and this is similar to what has taken place in the U.S.,” said Michele Rivkin-Fish, an anthropologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision rescinding a five-decade-old right to abortion has reshaped American abortion policy, shifting power to states. About half of U.S. states have adopted bans or major restrictions, although not all are being enforced due to legal challenges.

    In the Soviet Union, abortion laws meant that some women had the procedure multiple times due to difficulties in obtaining contraceptives.

    After the USSR’s collapse, government and health experts promoted family planning and birth control, sending abortion rates falling. At the same time, laws allowed women to terminate a pregnancy up until 12 weeks without any conditions; and until 22 weeks for many “social reasons,” like divorce, unemployment or income.

    That changed under Putin, who has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church, promoting “traditional values” and seeking to boost population growth. Health Minister Mikhail Murashko has condemned women for prioritizing education and career over childbearing.

    Over the decades, the number of abortions in Russia fell from 4.1 million in 1990 to 517,000 in 2021.

    Only in instances of rape is an abortion legally allowed between 12 and 22 weeks. Some regions hold “Days of Silence,” when public clinics don’t provide them. Women must wait 48 hours or even a week -– depending on what stage of pregnancy -– between their first appointment and the abortion, in case they reconsider. They also are offered psychological consultations designed to discourage abortions, according to state-issued guidelines reviewed by AP.

    Health authorities have introduced an online “motivational questionnaire” outlining state support if women continue the pregnancy, according to a state clinic gynecologist who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

    She said the waiting periods were psychologically hard for some of her patients. “During that week (of waiting), she might start getting nauseous and experience other symptoms of pregnancy,” she added. “They don’t understand the point.”

    State clinics in one region referred women to a priest before getting an abortion. Authorities maintained the consultation was voluntary, but some women told the media they had to get a priest to sign off to get an abortion.

    The anti-abortion push comes as Russian women appear to be in no rush to have more children amid the war in Ukraine and economic uncertainty. Sales of abortion pills in 2022 were up 60%, according to Nikolay Bespalov, development director of the RNC Pharma analytical company. They fell 35% this year, still higher than pre-2022 levels. Sales of contraceptive medications also have been rising in 2022-23, he said.

    A recent Health Ministry decree restricted circulation of abortion pills, used to terminate pregnancies in the first trimester. The decree puts mifepristone and misoprostol, used in the pills, on a registry of controlled substances requiring strict record-keeping and storage.

    For hospitals and clinics, where the pills are usually dispensed, the move will add more paperwork but not much else, said Dr. Yekaterina Hivrich, head of gynecology at Lahta Clinic, a private clinic in St. Petersburg.

    But it will affect the availability of emergency contraceptives, sometimes known as morning-after pills, which are taken within days of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. Three out of six brands available in Russia contain mifepristone in a lower dose, meaning they’ll be severely restricted once the decree takes effect Sept. 1, 2024.

    They will require a special prescription, and not all pharmacies will stock them, said Irina Fainman, an activist in the northern region of Karelia, adding that getting a prescription takes time that women might not have when they need the pills.

    The Health Ministry did not respond to questions on whether it will exclude morning-after pills in the decree. Officials earlier promised it won’t affect those pills, but some pharmacies already list those with mifepristone as available only under strict prescription conditions.

    After the restrictions were announced, Fainman said she and other activists stocked up on the pills to distribute in case of shortages.

    Sales of emergency contraceptives soared 71% through August 2023, over the same period last year, according to Bespalov. Those containing mifepristone account for about half the market. New measures likely will increase the cost of unrestricted medications and possibly lead to short-term shortages.

    Senior lawmaker Pyotr Tolstoy said that by spring, lawmakers would strive to adopt a nationwide ban on abortion in private clinics, where about 20% took place in recent years, according to state statistics.

    Conservative lawmakers failed to enact such a ban before, but the Health Ministry now says it is ready to consider it.

    To Irina Volynets, an abortion opponent and children’s rights ombudswoman in the Tatarstan region, “it gives hope that this procedure will be taken out of private clinics” eventually. She also wants increased state support for women with children as an incentive for boosting birthrates.

    Regional authorities have tried to get private clinics to stop offering abortions, with varying success. Kaliningrad is mulling a region-wide ban. In Tatarstan, about a third of all private clinics no longer provide them, officials said. In the Chelyabinsk region in the Urals, three clinics agreed to halt them.

    “It’s important to understand that the pressure on women will be growing” even in the absence of a total ban, said Kaliningrad psychotherapist and activist Lina Zharin, who helped organize the recent bookstore meeting. An online petition against the ban in Kaliningrad has gathered nearly 27,000 signatures.

    In seven other regions, the Health Ministry is using another pilot project: having gynecologists try to get women to reconsider having an abortion.

    A document obtained by AP and cited by other media outlines language doctors are told to use, including saying pregnancy is “a beautiful and natural condition for every woman,” while an abortion is “harmful to your health and a risk of developing complications.”

    Natalya Moskvitina, founder of Women For Life, which aids women who decide against abortion, said she helped develop the instructions and is introducing similar scripts for doctors in several regions.

    Moskvitina made headlines in August after the region of Mordovia adopted a law she helped draft to ban “encouraging” abortions. At least one other region is considering a similar ban. Her program, which instructs doctors to congratulate women on being pregnant and gives baby-themed presents and information on support resources, has driven the abortion rate down 40% in Mordovia, she and local officials said.

    For women with doubts about abortion, such conversations might indeed help them reach a decision but for others, they could be deeply uncomfortable.

    Olga Mindolina was contemplating an abortion in 2020, traumatized by an earlier, difficult pregnancy. But when a doctor in a state clinic in the western city of Voronezh asked her what she wanted to do, she said she didn’t know -– and was told, “In this case, you should give birth.”

    A clinic psychologist told her that women sometimes regret abortion, advising her to talk to her husband. A lawyer also told her about state benefits she could get if she gave birth. Mindolina decided to continue the pregnancy.

    Anastasia, a Muscovite who sought an abortion in 2020, said it “wasn’t very pleasant” when a doctor urged her to change her mind.

    “I simply don’t want any children,” she told AP, asking that her last name not be used for fear of reprisals.

    Dr. Lyubov Yeroveyeva, a gynecologist who spearheaded family planning projects in the 1990s, believes the key is preventing unwanted pregnancies with education about birth control and making contraceptives widely available.

    Instead of talking a woman out of an abortion, authorities should “do everything so she doesn’t have to seek one,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    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

  • Tennessee attorney general sues federal government over abortion rule blocking funding

    Tennessee attorney general sues federal government over abortion rule blocking funding

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee’s top legal chief says the federal government is wrongly withholding millions of dollars in family planning funds after the state refused to comply with federal rules requiring clinics to provide abortion referrals due to its current ban on the procedure.

    Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Knoxville earlier this week seeking to overturn the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decision.

    “We are suing to stop the federal government from playing politics with the health of Tennessee women,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “Our lawsuit is necessary to ensure that Tennessee can continue its 50-year track record of successfully providing these public health services to its neediest populations.”

    An HHS spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.

    Earlier this year, Tennessee was disqualified from receiving millions of federal dollars offered through a family planning program known as Title X. Tennessee has been a recipient of the program since it launched in 1970, recently collecting around $7.1 million annually to help nearly 100 clinics provide birth control and basic health care services mainly to low-income women, many of them from minority communities.

    However, the program has also become entangled with the increasingly heated fight over abortion access. In 2021, the Biden administration reversed a ban on abortion referrals by clinics that accept Title X funds. The restriction was initially enacted during the Donald Trump administration in 2019, but the department has swung back and forth on the issue for years.

    Under the latest rule, clinics cannot use federal family planning money to pay for abortions, but they must offer information about abortion at the patient’s request.

    Then, last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing many Republican-led states like Tennessee to impose abortion bans. The lawsuit filed on Tuesday alleges that HHS never informed officials how its 2021 rule would apply in states with abortion restrictions.

    In March, HHS informed Tennessee health officials that the state was out of Title X compliance because of its policy barring clinics from providing information on pregnancy termination options that weren’t legal in the state — effectively prohibiting any discussions on elective abortions. The state defended its policy and refused to back down, causing the federal government to declare in a March 20 letter that continuing Tennessee’s Title X money was “not in the best interest of the government.” The state later appealed the decision and that appeal is ongoing.

    Meanwhile, in September, HHS announced that Tennessee’s Title X funds would largely be directly funded to Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of abortions in the United States, which would distribute the money to its clinics located in Tennessee.

    At the time, Republican Gov. Bill Lee called the move “wrong on many levels” and accused the federal government of withholding federal money from families in order to support a “radical political organization.”

    Skrmetti’s office is asking a federal judge to reinstate Tennessee’s Title X money and to rule that HHS can’t withhold funds based on a state’s abortion ban, arguing that the federal appeals process over the issues has stalled. The state also is seeking “clarity” on whether it needs to use state funds to backfill the federal portion.

    Tennessee has increasingly called for rejecting federal funding rather than comply with requirements over LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access and other hot-button issues. Already this year, the Volunteer State has rebuffed federal funding for a program designed to prevent and treat HIV after initially attempting to block Planned Parenthood from participating in the program.

    Now, GOP lawmakers are talking about cutting off nearly $1.8 billion in federal education dollars — much of it targeted to serve low-income students, English learners and students with disabilities. Advocates argue that Tennessee has enough revenue to cover the federal funding portion and doing so would give the state more flexibility and not be restricted by regulations on LGBTQ+ rights, race and other issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Georgia Supreme Court allows 6-week abortion ban to stand for now

    Georgia Supreme Court allows 6-week abortion ban to stand for now

    [ad_1]

    The Georgia Supreme Court has rejected a lower court’s ruling that Georgia’s restrictive “heartbeat” abortion law was invalid, leaving limited access to abortions unchanged for now.

    Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said last November that Georgia’s ban, which prohibits abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually at about six weeks, was “unequivocally unconstitutional” because it was enacted in 2019, when Roe v. Wade allowed abortions well beyond six weeks. 

    The Georgia Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision said McBurney was wrong.

    “When the United States Supreme Court overrules its own precedent interpreting the United States Constitution, we are then obligated to apply the Court’s new interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning on matters of federal constitutional law,” Justice Verda Colvin wrote for the majority.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia said the opinion disregards “long-standing precedent that a law violating either the state or federal Constitution at the time of its enactment is void from the start under the Georgia Constitution.”

    The ACLU represented doctors and advocacy groups that had asked McBurney to throw out the law.

    The ruling does not change abortion access in Georgia, but it won’t be the last word on the ban.

    The state Supreme Court had previously allowed enforcement of the ban to resume while it considered an appeal of the lower court decision. The lower court judge has also not ruled on the merits of other arguments in a lawsuit challenging the ban, including that it violates Georgia residents’ rights to privacy.

    In its ruling on Tuesday, the state Supreme Court sent the case back to McBurney to consider those arguments.

    McBurney had said the law was void from the start, and therefore, the measure did not become law when it was enacted and could not become law even after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

    State officials challenging that decision noted the Supreme Court’s finding that Roe v. Wade was an incorrect interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Because the Constitution remained the same, Georgia’s ban was valid when it was enacted, they argued.

    Georgia’s law bans most abortions once a “detectable human heartbeat” is present. Cardiac activity can be detected by ultrasound in cells within an embryo that will eventually become the heart as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. That means most abortions in Georgia are effectively banned at a point before many women know they are pregnant.

    In a statement Tuesday evening, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Georgia Supreme Court “upheld a devastating abortion ban that has stripped away the reproductive freedom of millions of women in Georgia and threatened physicians with jail time for providing care.”

    “Republican elected officials are doubling down and calling for a national abortion ban that would criminalize reproductive health care in every state,” Jean-Pierre said. 

    The law includes exceptions for rape and incest, as long as a police report is filed, and allows for later abortions when the mother’s life is at risk or a serious medical condition renders a fetus unviable.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This is banned in the US but a hot topic in fight over Ohio’s abortion amendment

    This is banned in the US but a hot topic in fight over Ohio’s abortion amendment

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — With Election Day closing in, anti-abortion groups seeking to build opposition to a reproductive rights measure in Ohio are messaging heavily around a term for an abortion procedure that was once used later in pregnancy but that hasn’t been legal in the U.S. for over 15 years.

    In ads, debates and public statements, the opposition campaign and top Republicans have increasingly been referencing “partial-birth abortions” as an imminent threat if voters approve the constitutional amendment on Nov. 7. “Partial-birth abortion” is a non-medical term for a procedure known as dilation and extraction, or D&X, which is already federally prohibited.

    “It would allow a partial-birth abortion,” Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine told reporters recently as he explained his opposition to the constitutional amendment, known as Issue 1.

    “For many years, in Ohio and in this country, we’ve had a law that said a partial-birth abortion — where the child is partially delivered and then killed and then finally delivered — was illegal in Ohio,” the governor continued. “This constitutional amendment would override that.”

    Constitutional scholars say that is not true and that the amendment would not override the existing federal ban if Ohio voters approve it.

    “So changing our constitution will not affect in the slightest way the applicability of the federal partial-birth abortion ban,” said Dan Kobil, a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, who supports abortion rights. “It would be a federal crime for a doctor to violate that ban.”

    That’s because the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution calls for federal laws to trump state laws, said Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus of law at Case Western State University.

    “If the federal law prohibits a particular technique, then that’s going to prevail over a state law that might be inconsistent,” he said.

    Ohio is the only state this November where voters will decide whether abortion should be legal. But the debate isn’t happening in isolation. The state has been used as a campaign testing ground by anti-abortion groups after a string of defeats since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to the procedure. And next year, abortion rights supporters are planning to put the question before voters in several more states, ensuring the issue will be central to races up and down the ballot.

    A D&X procedure involved dilating the woman’s cervix, then pulling the fetus through the cervix, feet-first to the neck. The head was then punctured and the skull emptied and compressed to allow the fetus to fit through the dilated cervix. Before the federal ban, it was used for both abortions and miscarriages in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

    DeWine was serving in the U.S. Senate when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003. He voted for the prohibition, which declared a “moral, medical, and ethical consensus” that the procedure was “gruesome and inhumane.” President George W. Bush signed the measure into law with DeWine at his side.

    The ban was largely on hold while a constitutional challenge played out. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 rejected arguments against the law, upholding its application across all 50 states.

    Asked why the governor suggested a federal law he supported would not apply if Ohio changes its constitution, spokesman Dan Tierney said DeWine bases his position on provisions of the U.S. Constitution that prevent the federal government from regulating conduct that has no effect on interstate commerce. Kobil acknowledged that argument, but said it’s “almost certain to fail” if tested, given that the Supreme Court already declared the ban constitutional.

    DeWine isn’t the only top elected Republican in the state to warn that the procedure would be revived if the amendment passes on Nov. 7.

    In a memo earlier this month, Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said the state’s laws outlawing abortions through D&X and another procedure, non-intact dilation and evacuation, or D&E, the most common second trimester method, “would both be invalidated and these abortions would be permitted” if the amendment passes. The Ohio Senate’s Republican supermajority passed a resolution saying something similar.

    Entin, of Case Western, said “to the extent that the Ohio laws he’s discussed are also covered by the federal law, it doesn’t matter,” because federally banned procedures would remain illegal.

    Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, whose political arm is a major funder of the campaign opposing the amendment, said the federal ban “lacks enforcement” under a Biden Administration she described as “extreme pro-abortion.”

    “If it’s not being enforced, if there’s no teeth to it, then the protections need to happen at the state level,” argued spokesperson Amy Natoce of Protect Women Ohio, the Issue 1 opposition campaign. “Of course, if Issue 1 passed, we won’t have those protections.”

    Mae Winchester, a Cleveland-based maternal fetal medicine specialist, said use of the term in the campaign messaging over the amendment is misleading.

    “‘Partial-birth abortion’ is a made-up term that only serves to create confusion and stigmatize abortion later in pregnancy,” she said. “It’s not a procedure that’s described anywhere in medical literature, and so it’s not considered a medical term or even an actual medical procedure.”

    Ohio passed the nation’s first ban on what its lawmakers then dubbed “partial birth feticide” in 1995, just three years after Ohio physician Martin Haskell debuted the D&X procedure during an abortion practitioners conference. He touted it as a way to avoid an overnight hospital stay and as safer and less painful for women than other methods.

    Protect Women Ohio has invoked Haskell’s legacy in one of its ads. It shows an image of Haskell and describes the procedure he pioneered as “painful for the mother and the baby.” The voiceover then calls for a no vote on the amendment “so people like Dr. Haskell can’t perform painful ‘late-term’ abortions.”

    The spot doesn’t note the distinction between “partial-birth” and “late-term” abortions — both non-medical terms coined by anti-abortion advocates — nor reference the federal ban.

    Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, said because of protections provided to individuals and abortion providers in the amendment, “The ad withstands any scrutiny.”

    Haskell retired from active practice two years ago. He declined comment. But he has donated to the main group supporting the constitutional amendment, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights.

    Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland called talk of “late-term” and “partial-birth” abortions a scare tactic.

    “Issue 1 allows for clear restrictions on abortion after viability that protect patients’ health and safety,” she said. “These situations, when a woman needs an abortion later in pregnancy, are incredibly rare and heartbreaking for families.”

    Ohio hasn’t had an abortion of any type performed after 25 weeks’ gestation since 2018 and only four have been recorded since 2013, according to statistics compiled by the state Health Department. Abortions between 21 and 24 weeks’ gestation, a span that encompasses the outside limit of Ohio’s current law, totaled 576, or 0.6% of the total, over that time.

    Pritchard, of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, attributed the low numbers to the state’s existing abortion restrictions.

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Christine Fernando in Chicago contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This procedure is banned in the US. Why is it a hot topic in fight over Ohio’s abortion amendment?

    This procedure is banned in the US. Why is it a hot topic in fight over Ohio’s abortion amendment?

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — With Election Day closing in, anti-abortion groups seeking to build opposition to a reproductive rights measure in Ohio are messaging heavily around a term for an abortion procedure that was once used later in pregnancy — but hasn’t been legal in the U.S. for over 15 years.

    In ads, debates and public statements, the opposition campaign and top Republicans have increasingly been referencing “partial-birth abortions” as an imminent threat if voters approve the constitutional amendment on Nov. 7. “Partial-birth abortion” is a non-medical term for a procedure known as dilation and extraction, or D&X, which is already federally prohibited.

    “It would allow a partial-birth abortion,” Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine told reporters recently as he explained his opposition to the constitutional amendment, known as Issue 1.

    “For many years, in Ohio and in this country, we’ve had a law that said a partial-birth abortion — where the child is partially delivered and then killed and then finally delivered — was illegal in Ohio,” the governor continued. “This constitutional amendment would override that.”

    Constitutional scholars say that is not true and that the amendment would not override the existing federal ban if Ohio voters approve it.

    “So changing our constitution will not affect in the slightest way the applicability of the federal partial-birth abortion ban,” said Dan Kobil, a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, who supports abortion rights. “It would be a federal crime for a doctor to violate that ban.”

    That’s because the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution calls for federal laws to trump state laws, said Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus of law at Case Western State University.

    “If the federal law prohibits a particular technique, then that’s going to prevail over a state law that might be inconsistent,” he said.

    Ohio is the only state this November where voters will decide whether abortion should be legal. But the debate isn’t happening in isolation. The state has been used as a campaign testing ground by anti-abortion groups after a string of defeats since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to the procedure. And next year, abortion rights supporters are planning to put the question before voters in several more states, ensuring the issue will be central to races up and down the ballot.

    A D&X procedure involved dilating the woman’s cervix, then pulling the fetus through the cervix, feet-first to the neck. The head was then punctured and the skull emptied and compressed to allow the fetus to fit through the dilated cervix. Before the federal ban, it was used for both abortions and miscarriages in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

    DeWine was serving in the U.S. Senate when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003. He voted for the prohibition, which declared a “moral, medical, and ethical consensus” that the procedure was “gruesome and inhumane.” President George W. Bush signed the measure into law with DeWine at his side.

    The ban was largely on hold while a constitutional challenge played out. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 rejected arguments against the law, upholding its application across all 50 states.

    Asked why the governor suggested a federal law he supported would not apply if Ohio changes its constitution, spokesman Dan Tierney said DeWine bases his position on provisions of the U.S. Constitution that prevent the federal government from regulating conduct that has no effect on interstate commerce. Kobil acknowledged that argument, but said it’s “almost certain to fail” if tested, given that the Supreme Court already declared the ban constitutional.

    DeWine isn’t the only top elected Republican in the state to warn that the procedure would be revived if the amendment passes on Nov. 7.

    In a memo earlier this month, Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said the state’s laws outlawing abortions through D&X and another procedure, non-intact dilation and evacuation, or D&E, the most common second trimester method, “would both be invalidated and these abortions would be permitted” if the amendment passes. The Ohio Senate’s Republican supermajority passed a resolution saying something similar.

    Entin, of Case Western, said “to the extent that the Ohio laws he’s discussed are also covered by the federal law, it doesn’t matter,” because federally banned procedures would remain illegal.

    Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, whose political arm is a major funder of the campaign opposing the amendment, said the federal ban “lacks enforcement” under a Biden Administration she described as “extreme pro-abortion.”

    “If it’s not being enforced, if there’s no teeth to it, then the protections need to happen at the state level,” argued spokesperson Amy Natoce of Protect Women Ohio, the Issue 1 opposition campaign. “Of course, if Issue 1 passed, we won’t have those protections.”

    Mae Winchester, a Cleveland-based maternal fetal medicine specialist, said use of the term in the campaign messaging over the amendment is misleading.

    “‘Partial-birth abortion’ is a made-up term that only serves to create confusion and stigmatize abortion later in pregnancy,” she said. “It’s not a procedure that’s described anywhere in medical literature, and so it’s not considered a medical term or even an actual medical procedure.”

    Ohio passed the nation’s first ban on what its lawmakers then dubbed “partial birth feticide” in 1995, just three years after Ohio physician Martin Haskell debuted the D&X procedure during an abortion practitioners conference. He touted it as a way to avoid an overnight hospital stay and as safer and less painful for women than other methods.

    Protect Women Ohio has invoked Haskell’s legacy in one of its ads. It shows an image of Haskell and describes the procedure he pioneered as “painful for the mother and the baby.” The voiceover then calls for a no vote on the amendment “so people like Dr. Haskell can’t perform painful ‘late-term’ abortions.”

    The spot doesn’t note the distinction between “partial-birth” and “late-term” abortions — both non-medical terms coined by anti-abortion advocates — nor reference the federal ban.

    Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, said because of protections provided to individuals and abortion providers in the amendment, “The ad withstands any scrutiny.”

    Haskell retired from active practice two years ago. He declined comment. But he has donated to the main group supporting the constitutional amendment, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights.

    Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland called talk of “late-term” and “partial-birth” abortions a scare tactic.

    “Issue 1 allows for clear restrictions on abortion after viability that protect patients’ health and safety,” she said. “These situations, when a woman needs an abortion later in pregnancy, are incredibly rare and heartbreaking for families.”

    Ohio hasn’t had an abortion of any type performed after 25 weeks’ gestation since 2018 and only four have been recorded since 2013, according to statistics compiled by the state Health Department. Abortions between 21 and 24 weeks’ gestation, a span that encompasses the outside limit of Ohio’s current law, totaled 576, or 0.6% of the total, over that time.

    Pritchard, of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, attributed the low numbers to the state’s existing abortion restrictions.

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Christine Fernando in Chicago contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Britney Spears says in new memoir she had an abortion while dating Justin Timberlake

    Britney Spears says in new memoir she had an abortion while dating Justin Timberlake

    [ad_1]

    Britney Spears says in new memoir she had an abortion while dating Justin Timberlake – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Britney Spears says in her new memoir, “The Woman in Me,” she had an abortion while dating Justin Timberlake. CBS News’ Jamie Yuccas has the story.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Britney Spears Had an Abortion After Justin Timberlake Said He “Didn’t Want to Be a Father,” Memoir Reveals

    Britney Spears Had an Abortion After Justin Timberlake Said He “Didn’t Want to Be a Father,” Memoir Reveals

    [ad_1]

    Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake were the couple the whole world was talking about when they dated from 1999 to 2002, and two decades later, the former Mickey Mouse Club costars are making headlines once again. 

    Spears’s memoir, The Woman in Me, doesn’t hit shelves until next week, on October 24, but the revelations from the book about Spears’s life are already coming fast and furious. In a newly revealed passage from the book, Spears writes that she became pregnant with Timberlake’s child while they were dating. She got an abortion at Timberlake’s urging, she writes, according to a brief quote published by People.

    “It was a surprise, but for me, it wasn’t a tragedy,” she wrote of the pregnancy. “I loved Justin so much. I always expected us to have a family together one day. This would just be much earlier than I’d anticipated.” 

    “But Justin definitely wasn’t happy about the pregnancy. He said we weren’t ready to have a baby in our lives, that we were way too young.”

    “If it had been left up to me alone, I never would have done it,” she wrote of the abortion. “And yet Justin was so sure that he didn’t want to be a father.”

    “To this day, it’s one of the most agonizing things I have ever experienced in my life,” she wrote of the abortion. 

    Spears eventually had two children with ex-husband Kevin Federline, 18-year-old Sean Preston and 17-year-old Jayden James. Her sons currently live in Hawaii with Federline. Spears and Timberlake began dating when Spears was 17 years old, and Timberlake was 18. 

    Vanity Fair has reached out to representatives for Spears and Timberlake for comment, as well as The Woman in Me publisher Simon & Schuster.

    [ad_2]

    Kase Wickman

    Source link

  • Candidates wrangle over abortion policy in Kentucky gubernatorial debate

    Candidates wrangle over abortion policy in Kentucky gubernatorial debate

    [ad_1]

    Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron accused each other of taking extreme stands on abortion policy Monday night as they wrangled over an issue that’s become a flashpoint in their hotly contested campaign for governor in Kentucky.

    During an hourlong debate at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, Kentucky, the rivals fielded questions over education, taxes, public safety and the monthlong strike by auto workers, which has spread to Ford’s highly profitable Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville.

    The candidates tried to one-up the other in their support for public education. Some of their sharpest exchanges during the televised debate, however, came when asked to lay out their stands on abortion.

    Their remarks, which took place about three weeks before the Nov. 7 election, came against the backdrop of Kentucky’s current abortion law, which bans the procedure except when carried out to save a pregnant woman’s life or to prevent a disabling injury.

    Beshear said that his challenger celebrated the abortion ban’s passage and pointed to Cameron’s long-running support for the law as written, without exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

    “My opponent’s position would give a rapist more rights than their victim,” Beshear said. “It is wrong. We need to change this law. We need to make sure that those individuals have that option.”

    Once Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the state’s trigger law — passed in 2019 — took effect to ban nearly all abortions.

    Cameron reiterated Monday night that he would sign a bill adding abortion exceptions if given the chance, a position he revealed during a radio interview last month.

    Cameron went on the attack by pointing to Beshear’s opposition to abortion restrictions passed by the state’s GOP-dominated legislature. As attorney general, Beshear refused to defend a law imposing a 20-week ban on abortion, and later as governor he vetoed a 15-week ban, Cameron said.

    “That is Andy Beshear’s record on the issue of life,” Cameron said. “It’s one of failure for the unborn.”

    Beshear responded that he has consistently supported “reasonable restrictions,” especially on late-term abortions. Beshear also noted that the 15-week ban lacked exceptions for rape and incest.

    Abortion polices have been at the forefront of the campaign. Beshear’s campaign released a TV ad last month featuring a Kentucky woman who revealed her own childhood trauma while calling for rape and incest exceptions. The woman, now in her early 20s, talked about having been raped by her stepfather when she was 12 years old. She became pregnant as a seventh grader but eventually miscarried.

    Meanwhile, the candidates took turns touting their plans to improve public education.

    Cameron accused the governor of mischaracterizing his plan to help students overcome learning loss when schools were closed during the pandemic.

    “We need a governor that is going to lean into this issue to fight for our kids and make sure that they have the best education system here possible in Kentucky,” Cameron said.

    Beshear highlighted his own plan calling for an 11% pay raise for teachers and all public school personnel, including bus drivers, janitors and cafeteria staff. He said he’s supported educators “every step of the way” to raise their pay and protect their pensions as governor and previously as attorney general.

    “If we want to catch our kids up in math, you have to have a math teacher,” the governor said. “And it’s also time for universal pre-K for every four-year-old in Kentucky.”

    Beshear criticized Cameron for supporting a Republican-backed measure to award tax credits for donations supporting private school tuition. The Kentucky Supreme Court struck down the measure last year. The governor and other opponents of the bill said the program would have diverted money from public schools. Supporters said the measure offered opportunities for parents who want new schooling options for their children but are unable to afford them.

    “He (Cameron) supports a voucher program that would take tens of millions of dollars out of our public school system,” Beshear said. “Out of the paychecks of our educators, out of the resources that they need, and again send them to fancy private schools.”

    Cameron has proposed raising the statewide base starting pay for new teachers, saying it would have a ripple effect by lifting pay for other teachers. Cameron’s plan also would develop an optional, 16-week tutoring program for math and reading instruction.

    “We need leadership that’s going to catch our kids up,” Cameron said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As Mexico expands abortion access, activists support reproductive rights at US border

    As Mexico expands abortion access, activists support reproductive rights at US border

    [ad_1]

    TIJUANA, Mexico — It’s Sunday night and Crystal P. Lira is not answering her messages. Inside the headquarters of Colectiva Bloodys y Projects, an organization that has supported reproductive rights near the U.S.-Mexico border since 2016, her only concern is for the woman she has provided with a safe space to get an abortion.

    Lira, who lives in Tijuana, in northern Mexico, is one among dozens of Mexican “acompañantes” — volunteers who support women wanting to terminate a pregnancy. Located all over the country, most acompañantes offer virtual guidance through an abortion protocol in which no clinics or prescriptions are needed.

    Developed by activists after decades of facing abortion bans and restrictions in most of Mexico’s 32 states, the protocol encourages women to trust self-managed medication abortions following guidelines established by the World Health Organization.

    “Accompaniment means that we facilitate information, medications and everything a woman needs to get a safe abortion at home,” Lira said. “But we also provide emotional support and support to fight stigma, religious and cultural barriers.”

    Mexico’s Supreme Court recently ruled that national laws prohibiting abortions are unconstitutional and violate women’s rights. The ruling, which extended Latin American’s trend of widening abortion access, happened a year after the court’s U.S. counterpart went in the opposite direction.

    The Mexican decision did not have the same immediate impact as Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing women’s access to abortion on a nationwide basis.

    Although the Mexican ruling orders the removal of abortion from the federal penal code and requires federal health institutions to offer the procedure to anyone who requests it, further state-by-state legal work will be needed to remove all penalties.

    “The court did not give a direct instruction to any local congress, but it sends a very clear signal of what congresses have to do,” said Sofia Aguiar, a lawyer at the Information Group for Chosen Reproduction, known by its Spanish initials GIRE.

    For now, 20 Mexican states still criminalize abortion.

    In Baja California, where Tijuana is located, abortion was decriminalized in 2021. By then, Lira had already gained five years’ experience as an acompañante.

    “Ahead of starting an abortion network, I questioned myself: How did I get to this point? Why did I live what I lived, and what could have been different?” she said.

    In 2012, Lira faced an unwanted pregnancy. “I didn’t know what to do, where to look for help,” she said.

    On the recommendation of a friend, and due to her hometown’s proximity to the U.S. border, Lira made an appointment at a Planned Parenthood clinic in San Diego. She traveled back home with pills and a debt of $600 that she paid for her abortion.

    Three years later, deeply conflicted by the inequality in abortion access, she became an activist and received training to become an acompañante.

    “The easiest part was learning the abortion protocol,” she said. “The toughest was acquiring a political perspective, understanding how abortions are based on rights and freedom.”

    Many reject her views in Mexico, a predominantly Catholic country.

    Soon after the court’s ruling in early September, former actor and right-wing activist Eduardo Verástegui announced he will seek the presidency on an anti-abortion platform. “Say ‘yes’ to life and ‘no’ to abortion,” he has said, echoed by his followers.

    Without mentioning him by name, the Catholic archbishop of Mexico City, Carlos Aguiar Retes, recently advocated voting for Verástegui in the 2024 election, and some Catholic, evangelical and anti-abortion groups have publicly supported him as well.

    “We think it’s good to have a character like him,” said Rodrigo Iván Cortés, director of the National Family Front, an anti-abortion group. “He’s explicit about defending life and family.”

    Abortion activists were not surprised by the conservative response to the court’s ruling.

    “Historically, every progressive movement is followed by a setback from groups that organize against it,” said Aguiar from GIRE. “We saw it in the United States.”

    Aguiar and her colleagues plan to keep advocating for reproductive rights. “We will continue working on issues like obstetric violence, maternal death and forced contraception,” Aguiar said.

    At Colectiva Bloodys y Projects, Lira has plans of her own.

    With a colleague who recently moved to San Diego, they hope to replicate some of their abortion strategies in California. “We want to migrate our perspectives,” Lira said. “To lead informative brigades and communicate that we can provide pills for those who can’t access abortion medication there.”

    It’s no coincidence that Lira’s views are influenced by migration. The surge of migrants approaching the U.S. border, traveling from Colombia through the Darién jungle and moving up through Central America into Mexico, could approach 500,000 this year.

    Venezuelans, Salvadorans, Haitians and Mexicans — internally displaced by violence — are among those who migrate by trains, buses and on foot. Along the way, thousands are victims of robbery, human trafficking and sexual abuse.

    “We’ve been seeing women who suffer a lot of violence on their way to the United States,” Lira said.

    Some migrants who wish to terminate their pregnancies contact them directly and others are channeled through shelters or midwives. “We have realized the need to support these women. … They experience violence, especially sexual, and need abortions,” said Minerva, another member of Colectiva Bloodys y Projects. For security reasons, she spoke on condition she be identified only by her first name.

    Access to medication and a private space to get a self-managed abortion are particularly difficult for migrants, who can spend several months in shelters on the border.

    “We want to accompany them,” Lira said. “But abortion access is just the tip of the iceberg. We expect to share key information for their physical and mental health.”

    Joining forces with a local organization focused on reproductive health, Lira and activist Monica Rosas will offer an informative workshop on fertility and the reproductive cycle by mid-October at a church-affiliated shelter where up to 1,700 migrants are currently waiting to enter the U.S.

    “We will create a space for self-knowledge as a tribe,” Rosas said.

    The program includes body literacy — naming parts of the anatomy free of taboos — and dances to celebrate the female body.

    “We would love for these women who are passing through, waiting for an opportunity to cross, to carry this information with them,” Lira said. “Our bodies are powerful and, if we know them, that can help us reach our own identity.”

    ___

    Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • An Off-Year Election Could Have Huge Consequences For Abortion Everywhere

    An Off-Year Election Could Have Huge Consequences For Abortion Everywhere

    [ad_1]

    Kimberly Pope Adams did not think she would ever crisscross Virginia farmland, knocking on doors and talking about the abortion procedure she got after experiencing a miscarriage 16 years ago. But over the past 15 months, that’s nearly all she has done.

    “I’ll be honest with you: It’s uncomfortable to talk about, but it’s necessary,” Adams, who is running for the House of Delegates in Virginia’s 82nd District, told HuffPost. “I cannot keep this story bottled up inside when I know how important the stakes are in this election.”

    The entire Virginia legislature is on the ballot for the first time since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Republicans currently control the House, and Democrats have a small majority in the Senate. If Republicans take back the Senate, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) will get the GOP trifecta he’s long been vying for and the power to enact the 15-week abortion ban he has championed.

    The results of the November election will be felt beyond Virginia: The state is the last safe haven for abortion access in the South.

    “If you go southwest from Virginia, you have to go all the way to New Mexico until you reach a state that doesn’t have an abortion ban in effect,” said Jamie Lockhart, president at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia. “Not only is it critical for Virginians that we remain a key access state, but it’s critical for the whole South.”

    Pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List have poured millions into the Virginia legislative elections, as have national Democrats. Youngkin and other Republicans have responded accordingly: The governor has raised millions via his political action committee, Spirit of Virginia, to fund Republicans in competitive races.

    Both sides are trying to inspire voters to show up at the polls. Historically, off-year cycles — where there is no presidential or midterm election — have the lowest voter turnout, and the stakes are high. But a recent poll shows that most Virginia voters say Roe v. Wade’s repeal will play a big role in whom they vote for, and over 55% say they believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances.

    “Had I spoken about this before? No,” Adams said of her miscarriage and abortion story. “But now I have to, because if I don’t, people may not have the right to make this decision for themselves.”

    The South’s Last Abortion Access Point

    Access in Virginia is critical for several reasons. Abortion is legal in the state through the second trimester, or around 26 weeks, making it not only an abortion refuge in the South but also a critical access point for abortion later in pregnancy.

    Many neighboring states, including North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee, have enacted strict abortion bans in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that overturned federal protections. In the first six months of 2023, there was a 60% increase in abortion care in Virginia, according to the reproductive rights organization Guttmacher Institute, which attributed the jump to traffic from other states.

    “If you go southwest from Virginia, you have to go all the way to New Mexico until you reach a state that doesn’t have an abortion ban in effect.”

    – Jamie Lockhart, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia

    Youngkin has pushed the narrative that a 15-week abortion ban is moderate ― especially in comparison to the near-total or six-week bans being passed by contemporaries like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) — but it would still have a huge impact on Virginians and patients from the rest of the region.

    Just over 95% of abortions in Virginia take place before the 15-week point. But often, the people seeking abortions after 15 weeks are the most marginalized: They’re under 18, low-income and/or live in rural areas with barriers to care. Additionally, genetic testing for fatal fetal abnormalities often does not occur until 18 or 20 weeks of pregnancy, meaning a 15-week abortion ban would force people with wanted pregnancies who discover a fetal abnormality to seek necessary medical care outside of Virginia.

    One recent patient at the Whole Woman’s Health clinic in Charlottesville came all the way from Georgia to get an abortion, said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of the independent abortion care organization. She was a few days shy of 15 weeks pregnant by the time she arrived at the small clinic in the Blue Ridge Mountains, but only because she had faced so many barriers to care until that point.

    The patient found out she was pregnant after she went to the emergency room with stomach pain. She was over seven weeks pregnant, putting her just outside of the six-week limit to get an abortion in Georgia. The patient rushed to get an appointment in North Carolina but was over 12 weeks pregnant by the time she arrived at the clinic, making her too far along to get an abortion there. She drove back to Georgia and was eventually able to secure an appointment at the Whole Woman’s Health clinic in Charlottesville — an eight-hour drive from her home.

    “Even with all of the abortion funds that we helped them raise, [the patient and her partner] cleared their savings. They had to get back in the car and drive right back after the abortion because her partner had to be back at work,” said Hagstrom Miller. “That’s the kind of thing that we’re dealing with.”

    Youngkin’s 15-week abortion ban — along with a near-total abortion ban and a ban on the procedure later in pregnancy — died in the Virginia Senate earlier this year, but flipping the Senate would give him the power to pass it.

    The governor’s political action committee, Spirit of Virginia, has proven to be a powerful weapon: In just 48 hours earlier this month, Youngkin raised $4.4 million with the help of several billionaire donors pitching in during the final fundraising stretch. He has also personally donated over $1.5 million to Spirit. In total, Youngkin has raised $19 million for the Virginia GOP via Spirit since 2022.

    “The Virginia electoral environment in 2023 is really two parties talking past each other. Democrats really want to talk only about abortion, and Republicans want to talk about anything else.”

    – Stephen Farnsworth, political scientist

    But Republicans in purple Virginia have a big problem: No one knows how to talk about abortion restrictions without the guardrails Roe once provided. It used to be that Republicans could galvanize their base by calling for severe abortion restrictions and trigger bans. Yet they knew they would never be able to act on these political promises, which aren’t popular with mainstream voters — particularly those in suburban districts, where elections are won and lost in Virginia.

    “A significant number of Americans may not have clear policies about international matters, but something like abortion is really, really close to home,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg. “It affects individuals in a very dramatic way, it affects families in a very dramatic way, and so it’s an effective topic.”

    “Republicans might have had a more appealing environment for talking about abortion when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land because then the conversation was theoretical.”

    As a result, we’re watching Republicans experiment in real time with how to handle the question of abortion in a post-Roe world.

    “In many ways, the Virginia electoral environment in 2023 is really two parties talking past each other,” Farnsworth said. “Democrats really want to talk only about abortion, and Republicans want to talk about anything else.”

    The Tale Of The ‘Common Sense’ 15-Week Ban

    Many Republican candidates scrubbed their websites of more extreme anti-choice language and are refusing to discuss the issue in depth on the campaign trail. At the beginning of this year, GOP House of Delegates candidate John Stirrup’s website stated, in part: “John knows that life is precious and a gift from God. John will protect the sanctity of life and will always vote pro-life.” As of October, all mention of abortion or anti-choice views had been removed from his website. He did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

    Stirrup, who is running in a competitive district, was secretly recorded telling voters in August that he would “support a 100% ban.” (He walked back those comments shortly thereafter, saying there was not enough support for a total ban but that he would support Youngkin’s 15-week ban.)

    Other Virginia Republicans are using a strategy we’ve seen at the national level: Attack Democrats for purportedly allowing no limits on abortion care. “Most people believe that abortion at the moment of birth is wrong, far beyond any reasonable limit. Not Virginia Democrats,” a voiceover says in a Republican campaign ad paid for by the GOP House and Senate caucuses. “They’ve fought to make late-term abortions the rule, not the exception.” (Abortion later in pregnancy is very rare: Less than 1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later, and the subset of abortions in the third trimester is even smaller. No Democrats are campaigning to change that.)

    “I’ve worked in this field for almost 35 years, and I’ve never met a patient who found out they were pregnant and then decided to wait until the second trimester to get an abortion,” said Hagstrom Miller, of Whole Woman’s Health, debunking the myth that people who get abortions later in pregnancy do so as a form of birth control or because they’ve simply changed their minds.

    “People want to have the care that they need as soon as they can,” she said.

    If there is a streamlined message on abortion in Virginia Republicans’ playbook, it’s that Youngkin is king and his 15-week abortion ban is moderate. More and more candidates are doing mental gymnastics to prove to voters that a 15-week ban is “common sense.” Some have gone as far as claiming a 15-week ban is so moderate that it doesn’t constitute an actual ban.

    “I don’t support an abortion ban. Period,” state Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant, an OB-GYN running in a competitive district, says in a campaign ad released earlier this month. The ad goes on to describe how the Republican supports a 15-week abortion ban with exceptions.

    Dunnavant tells her constituents on her campaign website that she supports restricting abortion after 15 weeks — a proposal she says is “not a ban, but legislation that reflects compassionate common sense.”

    “After 15 weeks, there should be reasonable exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother and severe fetal anomalies. What I cannot accept is the current Virginia law that allows for abortion up to the moment of birth,” she adds in a campaign video on her site.

    This is a misleading claim, given that Virginia’s current law only allows for abortion in the third trimester if the pregnant person’s life is at risk or continuing the pregnancy would “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.”

    When asked why she does not define a 15-week abortion restriction as a ban, Dunnavant told HuffPost: “I would pose that a ban is defined as none. This is not a ban. This is a conversation offering a place where we can build consensus… because we have to change the conversation from two radical extremes to something that we can do together. And that’s why my position is what it is.”

    Youngkin is using this rhetoric as well. His political action committee rolled out a $1.4 million ad campaign this week saying the governor supports a “commonsense” 15-week “limit” on abortion, with exceptions.

    “It’s just not true, their lies about abortion. It’s disinformation. Politics at its worst,” the ad states. “Here’s the truth: There is no ban. Virginia Republicans support a reasonable 15-week limit with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. It’s a commonsense position.”

    The handful of Democratic candidates HuffPost spoke with repeated almost word-for-word the same response: A ban is a ban is a ban.

    “It’s so frustrating for me because people say that it’s a compromise but it’s not,” Adams said. “There is no compromise when you’re talking about a woman’s right to make her own decisions.”

    Del. Schuyler VanValkenburg, a Democrat running against Dunnavant in the state Senate, added: “If something is legal and then it becomes illegal, that is a ban.”

    VanValkenburg pointed to places like Florida, where an abortion ban started at 15 weeks but quickly became a six-week restriction. “There’s the law that’s started with and there’s the law that’s ended with, and those laws are often more strict and they’re more punitive,” he said. “We should not go down that path.”

    Painting a 15-week ban as moderate is a risky move for Republicans, said Farnsworth, the University of Mary Washington political scientist.

    “It makes sense for Republicans to be talking about 15 weeks. That’s an area where there could be some opportunity for softening the anti-abortion measure in a way that would be more acceptable to the electorate,” he said. “But for a lot of Republican candidates, that’s a significant change from what they’ve said in the past, and that’s a problem.”

    “If you win nominations based on being pro-life, and then you talk about 15 weeks, there are plenty of pro-life voters that will see that as a betrayal,” Farnsworth added.

    “There is no compromise when you’re talking about a woman’s right to make her own decisions.”

    – Kimberly Pope Adams, candidate for Virginia House of Delegates

    Democrats are optimistic that talking about abortion and centering the issue in their campaigns will pay off big in Virginia. It’s been a motivating issue for the voters VanValkenburg has spoken with while campaigning in Senate District 16.

    “This is not some abstract issue we’re talking about ― it’s something people are seeing happen across the country,” he said. “They’re seeing, just a couple of weeks ago, the Alabama attorney general saying that they’d prosecute people who helped women cross state lines. They’re seeing women who are having to stay in parking lots of hospitals until they’re septic before they can get care. They’re seeing women come to Virginia and sleep in a parking lot overnight because they have to travel so far to get health care access.”

    “When people bring it up in the community, it’s oftentimes out of fear because of the very real things they’re seeing happening across the country, but particularly in our backyard in these other Southern states.”

    Not only is it a motivating issue for voters, but it’s also proven to be a winning issue. In all five states where there were referendums on abortion rights last year, voters chose to protect abortion access. In Virginia, Democrats centered abortion rights in two critical races earlier this year: a special election in January and a primary in June. Both candidates — Aaron Rouse and Lashrecse Aird, who were backed by pro-choice groups — won their seats.

    “It’s so important for Virginians to know that abortion is on the ballot and to know that our rights are at risk,” said Lockhart, of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia. “We know that abortion rights are a motivating issue for voters and we’ve seen that over and over again: When races are about abortion, abortion rights win.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion rights and marijuana questions expected to drive Ohioans to polls as early voting begins

    Abortion rights and marijuana questions expected to drive Ohioans to polls as early voting begins

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — Heavier-than-normal turnout is expected Wednesday as early voting begins in Ohio’s closely watched off-year election to decide the future of abortion access and marijuana legalization in the state.

    Of greatest interest nationally is Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment giving every person “the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.” The effort comes on the heels of a string of victories for abortion rights proponents around the country who have been winning in both Democratic and deeply Republican states since the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion was overturned.

    Both sides tried to gin up enthusiasm over the past week as they hosted rallies and canvassing events across the state.

    Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the yes campaign, emphasizes the measure’s ability to keep Ohio’s ban on most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected from taking effect. A judge’s order has placed the 2019 law on hold, but the Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether to lift that stay.

    Proponents’ ads argue that abortion-related decisions should be kept between a woman and her family, doctor and faith leaders, not regulated by government.

    The opposition campaign, Protect Women Ohio, has zeroed in on questions raised by Issue 1’s loose wording, citing legal theories — as yet, untested — that passing the amendment would jeopardize Ohio’s parental consent requirements for minors receiving abortions and other types of medical care.

    Opponents also have campaigned heavily on the idea that the amendment would allow abortions to happen in the final stages of pregnancy, despite such procedures being rare and generally involving life-threatening situations. Misinformation has also swirled around the campaign.

    Sam Zern, a regional field organizer for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights and a graduate student at Kent State University, said the organization has seen “an inspiring amount of energy on college campuses” around the state.

    Spokesperson Amy Natoce said Protect Women Ohio has seen good turnout at its events, including Friday’s March for Life at the Statehouse, and is putting “a huge emphasis on people getting out and banking their vote before Nov. 7.”

    Issue 2 on Ohio’s ballot is an initiated statute advanced by the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol that would allow adults 21 and over to buy and possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis and to grow plants at home. A 10% tax would be imposed on purchases, to be spent on administrative costs, addiction treatment programs, municipalities with dispensaries and social equity and jobs programs.

    Passage would make Ohio the 24th state to legalize cannabis for adult use.

    Opponents include the Ohio Business Roundtable, which represents executives from more than 100 of Ohio’s largest employers, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association and Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge Blocks Provisions In North Carolina’s New Abortion Law, Nearly All Restrictions Still Remain

    Judge Blocks Provisions In North Carolina’s New Abortion Law, Nearly All Restrictions Still Remain

    [ad_1]

    RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A federal judge on Saturday blocked two portions of North Carolina’s new abortion law from taking effect while a lawsuit continues. But nearly all of the restrictions approved by the legislature this year, including a near-ban after 12 weeks of pregnancy, aren’t being specifically challenged and remain intact.

    U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an order halting enforcement of a provision to require surgical abortions that occur after 12 weeks — those for cases of rape and incest, for example — be performed only in hospitals, not abortion clinics. That limitation would have otherwise taken effect on Sunday.

    And in the same preliminary injunction, Eagles extended beyond her temporary decision in June an order preventing enforcement of a rule that doctors must document the existence of a pregnancy within the uterus before prescribing a medication abortion.

    Short of successful appeals by Republican legislative leaders defending the laws, the order will remain in effect until a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a physician who performs abortions challenging the sections are resolved. The lawsuit also seeks to have clarified whether medications can be used during the second trimester to induce labor of a fetus that can’t survive outside the uterus.

    The litigation doesn’t directly seek to topple the crux of the abortion law enacted in May after GOP legislators overrode Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto. North Carolina had a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks before July 1, when the law scaled it back to 12 weeks.

    The law, a response to the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe v. Wade, also added new exceptions for abortions through 20 weeks for cases of rape and incest and through 24 weeks for “life-limiting” fetal anomalies. A medical emergency exception also stayed in place.

    On medication abortions, which bill sponsors say also are permitted through 12 weeks of pregnancy, the new law says a physician prescribing an abortion-inducing drug must first “document in the woman’s medical chart the … intrauterine location of the pregnancy.”

    Eagles wrote the plaintiffs were likely to be successful on their claim that the law is so vague as to subject abortion providers to claims that they broke the law if they can’t locate an embryo through an ultrasound because the pregnancy is so new.

    “Providers cannot know if medical abortion is authorized at any point through the twelfth week, as the statute explicitly says, or if the procedure is implicitly banned early in pregnancy,” said Eagles, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Barack Obama.

    And Eagles wrote the plaintiffs offered “uncontradicted” evidence that procedures for surgical abortions — also known as procedural abortions — after 12 weeks of pregnancy are the same as those used for managing miscarriages at that time period. Yet women with miscarriages aren’t required to receive those procedures in the hospital, she added.

    Republican legislative leaders defending the law in court “have offered no explanation or evidence — that is, no rational basis — for this differing treatment,” Eagles said in her order.

    Abortion-rights advocates still opposed to the new 12-week restrictions praised Saturday’s ruling.

    “We applaud the court’s decision to block a few of the onerous barriers to essential reproductive health care that have no basis in medicine,” said Dr. Beverly Gray, an OB-GYN and a named plaintiff in the case.

    A spokesperson for Senate leader Phil Berger, one of the legislative defendants, said Saturday that Eagles’ order was still being reviewed.

    Lawyers for Republican legislative leaders said in court documents in September that the provision requiring the documentation of an intrauterine pregnancy was designed to ensure the pregnancy was not ectopic, which can be dangerous. And “North Carolina rationally sought to help ensure the safety of women who may require hospitalization for complications from surgical abortions,” a legal brief from the lawmakers read.

    State Attorney General Josh Stein, a Democrat, abortion-rights supporter and 2024 candidate for governor, is officially a lawsuit defendant. But lawyers from his office asked Eagles to block the two provisions, largely agreeing with Planned Parenthood’s arguments. Stein said Saturday he was encouraged by Eagles’ ruling.

    [ad_2]

    Source link