- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,483
After taking everything away from women they'll start giving ... starting with chastity belts.
I’d laugh @kenny but it wouldn‘t surprise me if they brought these belts back. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Roe v. Wade.
- Thread starter yssie
- Start date
I’d laugh @kenny but it wouldn‘t surprise me if they brought these belts back. Nothing surprises me anymore.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,881
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
NYT breaking news
“ Supreme Court Ensures, for Now, Broad Access to Abortion Pill
The Supreme Court said Friday evening that the abortion pill mifepristone would remain widely available for now, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to a drug that is used in more than half of abortions in the United States.”
“
Here’s what you need to know about the abortion ruling.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday evening that the abortion pill mifepristone would remain widely available for now, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to a drug that is used in more than half of abortions in the United States.
The order halts a sweeping ruling by a federal judge in Texas, who had declared the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the pill more than two decades ago invalid, as an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit moves forward.
The one-paragraph order, which was unsigned, is the second time in a year that the Supreme Court has considered a major effort to sharply curtail access to abortion. In overturning Roe v. Wade in June, a conservative majority said that it was leaving the issue of abortion to elected officials.
Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented publicly. Justice Thomas gave no reasons. Justice Alito wrote that he was aware that the court had been criticized for issuing orders through the emergency applications docket, what critics call the “shadow docket.”
Writing for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that “the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
But the matter has made its way back to the court, in a case that could have profound implications even for states where abortion is legal, as well as for the F.D.A.’s regulatory authority over other drugs.
If an initial ruling by a federal judge in Texas were to stand, it could pave the way for all sorts of challenges to the agency’s approval of other medications and enable medical providers anywhere to contest government policy that might affect a patient.
The case reached the justices after a swift-moving and tangled fight over the legal status of mifepristone.
In November, an umbrella group of medical associations and a few doctors who oppose abortion filed a lawsuit in the Amarillo division of the federal court system in Texas, guaranteeing that the case would come before a single judge: Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Judge Kacsmaryk, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump, is a longtime opponent of abortion and joined the bench after working at First Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group that focuses on issues of religious liberty.
The group that brought the suit, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, argued that the F.D.A. had improperly approved the pill in 2000 and that mifepristone is unsafe. The agency has strongly disputed those claims, pointing to studies that show that serious complications are rare and that less than 1 percent of patients need hospitalization.
Mifepristone is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. More than five million women have used mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies in the United States, and dozens of other countries have approved the drug for use.
This month, Judge Kacsmaryk, in a temporary ruling, declared invalid the F.D.A.’s approval of the drug and gave both parties a week to seek emergency relief before the decision took effect.
Less than an hour later, a federal judge in Washington State, Thomas O. Rice, an appointee of President Barack Obama, issued a contradictory ruling in a separate lawsuit over mifepristone. Judge Rice blocked the F.D.A. from limiting the availability of the pill in 17 states and the District of Columbia, which were parties in that suit.
The competing rulings meant that the matter was almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.
The F.D.A. immediately appealed Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision, and a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the agency’s approval of the drug more than two decades ago, ensuring that mifepristone would remain on the market.
But the panel imposed several barriers to access, siding in part with Judge Kacsmaryk, while the lawsuit moved through the courts. It blocked a series of steps the F.D.A. had taken since 2016 to increase the availability and distribution of the drug, such as allowing it to be sent by mail and to be prescribed by medical providers who are not doctors.
Seeking emergency relief, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene while a fast-tracked appeal moved forward.
“If allowed to take effect, the lower courts’ orders would upend the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with sweeping consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, women who need access to the drug and F.D.A.’s ability to implement its statutory authority,” the government’s brief said.
Adam Liptak contributed reporting.
“
“ Supreme Court Ensures, for Now, Broad Access to Abortion Pill
The Supreme Court said Friday evening that the abortion pill mifepristone would remain widely available for now, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to a drug that is used in more than half of abortions in the United States.”
“
Here’s what you need to know about the abortion ruling.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday evening that the abortion pill mifepristone would remain widely available for now, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to a drug that is used in more than half of abortions in the United States.
The order halts a sweeping ruling by a federal judge in Texas, who had declared the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the pill more than two decades ago invalid, as an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit moves forward.
The one-paragraph order, which was unsigned, is the second time in a year that the Supreme Court has considered a major effort to sharply curtail access to abortion. In overturning Roe v. Wade in June, a conservative majority said that it was leaving the issue of abortion to elected officials.
Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented publicly. Justice Thomas gave no reasons. Justice Alito wrote that he was aware that the court had been criticized for issuing orders through the emergency applications docket, what critics call the “shadow docket.”
Writing for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that “the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
But the matter has made its way back to the court, in a case that could have profound implications even for states where abortion is legal, as well as for the F.D.A.’s regulatory authority over other drugs.
If an initial ruling by a federal judge in Texas were to stand, it could pave the way for all sorts of challenges to the agency’s approval of other medications and enable medical providers anywhere to contest government policy that might affect a patient.
The case reached the justices after a swift-moving and tangled fight over the legal status of mifepristone.
In November, an umbrella group of medical associations and a few doctors who oppose abortion filed a lawsuit in the Amarillo division of the federal court system in Texas, guaranteeing that the case would come before a single judge: Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Judge Kacsmaryk, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump, is a longtime opponent of abortion and joined the bench after working at First Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group that focuses on issues of religious liberty.
The group that brought the suit, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, argued that the F.D.A. had improperly approved the pill in 2000 and that mifepristone is unsafe. The agency has strongly disputed those claims, pointing to studies that show that serious complications are rare and that less than 1 percent of patients need hospitalization.
Mifepristone is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. More than five million women have used mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies in the United States, and dozens of other countries have approved the drug for use.
This month, Judge Kacsmaryk, in a temporary ruling, declared invalid the F.D.A.’s approval of the drug and gave both parties a week to seek emergency relief before the decision took effect.
Less than an hour later, a federal judge in Washington State, Thomas O. Rice, an appointee of President Barack Obama, issued a contradictory ruling in a separate lawsuit over mifepristone. Judge Rice blocked the F.D.A. from limiting the availability of the pill in 17 states and the District of Columbia, which were parties in that suit.
The competing rulings meant that the matter was almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.
The F.D.A. immediately appealed Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision, and a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the agency’s approval of the drug more than two decades ago, ensuring that mifepristone would remain on the market.
But the panel imposed several barriers to access, siding in part with Judge Kacsmaryk, while the lawsuit moved through the courts. It blocked a series of steps the F.D.A. had taken since 2016 to increase the availability and distribution of the drug, such as allowing it to be sent by mail and to be prescribed by medical providers who are not doctors.
Seeking emergency relief, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene while a fast-tracked appeal moved forward.
“If allowed to take effect, the lower courts’ orders would upend the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with sweeping consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, women who need access to the drug and F.D.A.’s ability to implement its statutory authority,” the government’s brief said.
Adam Liptak contributed reporting.
“
starbrite
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 290
The 150-year-old chastity law that may be the next big fight over abortion https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/28/politics/comstock-act-abortion-ban-legal-fight/index.html
If the Supreme Court approves this, what will then happen concerning non abortion medical care that may require the same supplies and instruments that "might" be used for an abortion?
It's obvious that the ultra conservatives won't be content until they get a full nationwide abortion ban no matter what it takes or who (or how many) it hurts.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,483
Thank you for posting the link to this article @starbrite. I was wondering what the next avenue to be taken in their bag of tricks would be. They aren’t going to stop until all abortions are banned In this country. The more cruelty inflicted on women the better with these people.
I believe they won't stop until all abortions AND birth control are illegal. How else will they keep us li'l ladies out of governing? Repealing the 19th Amendment?
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 5,508
They might find a lot of "unwilling" women. Then what? Change the rape laws so forced sex to impregnate is not a crime?
ItsMainelyYou
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
- Messages
- 5,136
Yes, that's exactly what will happen. It's biblical.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
"
The board will fine Bernard the maximum fine of $1,000 for each of the three counts of violating patient privacy laws and will send her a letter of reprimand following an administrative complaintopens in a new tab or window filed by Indiana's Attorney General Theodore "Todd" Rokita.
Bernard, an assistant professor of clinical ob/gyn at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, was thrust into the national spotlight last July after a story in the Indianapolis Staropens in a new tab or window broke, detailing her experience of terminating the pregnancy of a child rape victim in Indiana after an Ohio abortion ban kept the child from receiving the medical care in her home state.
In her testimony, Bernard said, "I wanted to speak as an abortion provider to be clear about the effects of potential upcoming laws in Indiana and what that would mean for my patients here in Indiana."
Rokita's complaint alleged that Bernard revealed sensitive patient information, violating state privacy laws and HIPAA in speaking to the media about her patient. The complaint also alleged that she failed to report child abuse correctly in the aftermath of the case.
Bernard's defense noted that a HIPAA breach risk assessment by the hospital had found that Bernard was in compliance with privacy laws. Bernard said that she was careful to not reveal personal health information when discussing her patient, and had followed hospital policy in her reporting of the care and the apparent child abuse.
The state's legal team focused on the widespread national attention the case drew, which they argued endangered the patient's privacy. Bernard had shared the patient's age, state of origin, and pregnancy status with another doctor at a reproductive health rally, and was overheard by Shari Rudavsky of the Indianapolis Star. Rudavsky then co-wrote the story that included Bernard's account of her patient after further conversation with Bernard.
"I was quite surprised by all of the attention," Bernard testified, adding that she had not been aware when talking to the reporter that her patient's case would become the focus of the story. "I was surprised that people think that young girls are not, unfortunately, frequently raped and become pregnant," she said, referring to accusations that she had made the story up.
The state also questioned Bernard's alleged political agenda. At one point the state's defense asked her, "Do you have a tattoo of a coat hanger that says 'trust women' on your body?" Alice Morical, Bernard's attorney, objected to the question as immaterial to the proceeding.
"Isn't it true that if you were quiet about your patient and did not push this narrative about [Indiana's] special session [regarding abortion] that you wanted to give to the media that we wouldn't be sitting here today?" state attorney Cory Voight asked Bernard.
"No, I don't think that's correct," Bernard responded. "I think that if the attorney general Todd Rokita had not chosen to make this his political stunt, we wouldn't be here today."
Referring to her advocacy for access to reproductive healthcare, Bernard said, "In my estimation, as I think it's the same for all physicians, abortion is not a political issue. Abortion is part of comprehensive reproductive healthcare and needs to stay squarely in the realm of public health."
The state's legal team also dissected child protective and state policies regarding the process of reporting child abuse across state lines, alleging that Bernard should have reported child abuse directly to the Department of Child Services in Indiana.
Per her hospital's policy, which Bernard and her legal team said were written to comply with state laws, Bernard notified the social worker assigned to the case.
The assigned Indiana University Health social worker, Stephanie Shook, testified that she then reported the suspected abuse to Child Protective Services in Ohio, where it had occurred, and confirmed that that agency and law enforcement in Ohio had already opened a case and were investigating the child abuse.
The state legal team also lingered on the decision to release the child back to her home in the care of her mother in Ohio and implied that Bernard should have assumed more responsibility for the child's safety following her discharge from the hospital.
"How did this girl get sent back to her home for 5 days?" John Strobel, MD, of the Indiana Medical Licensing Board, asked Bernard.
"I think the challenge is that realistically there are many situations in which people live with their perpetrator long after the abuse occurred," Bernard said, noting that the decision belonged to the Department of Child Services. "Luckily, that is not a decision that I as a physician have ever had to make. I can't imagine how difficult that that must be."
Bernard became tearful when speaking about the suspected perpetrator, who she said she initially thought could have been a brother of the victim. A 27-year-old man was later arrested for the rape, and his address was made public, although two brothers had initially been suspects.
After deliberation, the board ultimately decided that Bernard did violate state privacy laws and HIPAA when discussing the case, partially because of the uniqueness of the case and its wide publicity. "I think protecting the patient's information is more important than making the point to the media," said Strobel.
But because the board said the state needed Bernard's services as one of only a few practitioners accepting Medicaid, and because Bernard did not anticipate the widespread media attention, they determined they would send a letter of reprimand and allow her to continue working -- a relatively low-level disciplinary action.
The board also found that Bernard had not violated laws related to reporting the abuse to appropriate authorities.
"
Medical Board Reprimands Indiana Doctor in Child Abortion Case
— Caitlin Bernard, MD, said she wanted to share the real-world effects of state abortion bans
by Sophie Putka, Enterprise & Investigative Writer, MedPage Today May 26, 2023
The Indiana Medical Licensing Board has disciplined Caitlin Bernard, MD, the doctor of a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio who traveled to Indiana for abortion care last year, a case that became widely publicizedopens in a new tab or window.The board will fine Bernard the maximum fine of $1,000 for each of the three counts of violating patient privacy laws and will send her a letter of reprimand following an administrative complaintopens in a new tab or window filed by Indiana's Attorney General Theodore "Todd" Rokita.
Bernard, an assistant professor of clinical ob/gyn at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, was thrust into the national spotlight last July after a story in the Indianapolis Staropens in a new tab or window broke, detailing her experience of terminating the pregnancy of a child rape victim in Indiana after an Ohio abortion ban kept the child from receiving the medical care in her home state.
In her testimony, Bernard said, "I wanted to speak as an abortion provider to be clear about the effects of potential upcoming laws in Indiana and what that would mean for my patients here in Indiana."
Rokita's complaint alleged that Bernard revealed sensitive patient information, violating state privacy laws and HIPAA in speaking to the media about her patient. The complaint also alleged that she failed to report child abuse correctly in the aftermath of the case.
Bernard's defense noted that a HIPAA breach risk assessment by the hospital had found that Bernard was in compliance with privacy laws. Bernard said that she was careful to not reveal personal health information when discussing her patient, and had followed hospital policy in her reporting of the care and the apparent child abuse.
The state's legal team focused on the widespread national attention the case drew, which they argued endangered the patient's privacy. Bernard had shared the patient's age, state of origin, and pregnancy status with another doctor at a reproductive health rally, and was overheard by Shari Rudavsky of the Indianapolis Star. Rudavsky then co-wrote the story that included Bernard's account of her patient after further conversation with Bernard.
"I was quite surprised by all of the attention," Bernard testified, adding that she had not been aware when talking to the reporter that her patient's case would become the focus of the story. "I was surprised that people think that young girls are not, unfortunately, frequently raped and become pregnant," she said, referring to accusations that she had made the story up.
The state also questioned Bernard's alleged political agenda. At one point the state's defense asked her, "Do you have a tattoo of a coat hanger that says 'trust women' on your body?" Alice Morical, Bernard's attorney, objected to the question as immaterial to the proceeding.
"Isn't it true that if you were quiet about your patient and did not push this narrative about [Indiana's] special session [regarding abortion] that you wanted to give to the media that we wouldn't be sitting here today?" state attorney Cory Voight asked Bernard.
"No, I don't think that's correct," Bernard responded. "I think that if the attorney general Todd Rokita had not chosen to make this his political stunt, we wouldn't be here today."
Referring to her advocacy for access to reproductive healthcare, Bernard said, "In my estimation, as I think it's the same for all physicians, abortion is not a political issue. Abortion is part of comprehensive reproductive healthcare and needs to stay squarely in the realm of public health."
The state's legal team also dissected child protective and state policies regarding the process of reporting child abuse across state lines, alleging that Bernard should have reported child abuse directly to the Department of Child Services in Indiana.
Per her hospital's policy, which Bernard and her legal team said were written to comply with state laws, Bernard notified the social worker assigned to the case.
The assigned Indiana University Health social worker, Stephanie Shook, testified that she then reported the suspected abuse to Child Protective Services in Ohio, where it had occurred, and confirmed that that agency and law enforcement in Ohio had already opened a case and were investigating the child abuse.
The state legal team also lingered on the decision to release the child back to her home in the care of her mother in Ohio and implied that Bernard should have assumed more responsibility for the child's safety following her discharge from the hospital.
"How did this girl get sent back to her home for 5 days?" John Strobel, MD, of the Indiana Medical Licensing Board, asked Bernard.
"I think the challenge is that realistically there are many situations in which people live with their perpetrator long after the abuse occurred," Bernard said, noting that the decision belonged to the Department of Child Services. "Luckily, that is not a decision that I as a physician have ever had to make. I can't imagine how difficult that that must be."
Bernard became tearful when speaking about the suspected perpetrator, who she said she initially thought could have been a brother of the victim. A 27-year-old man was later arrested for the rape, and his address was made public, although two brothers had initially been suspects.
After deliberation, the board ultimately decided that Bernard did violate state privacy laws and HIPAA when discussing the case, partially because of the uniqueness of the case and its wide publicity. "I think protecting the patient's information is more important than making the point to the media," said Strobel.
But because the board said the state needed Bernard's services as one of only a few practitioners accepting Medicaid, and because Bernard did not anticipate the widespread media attention, they determined they would send a letter of reprimand and allow her to continue working -- a relatively low-level disciplinary action.
The board also found that Bernard had not violated laws related to reporting the abuse to appropriate authorities.
"
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
"
The rush in conservative states to ban abortion after the overturn of Roe v. Wade is resulting in a startling consequence that abortion opponents may not have considered: fewer medical services available for all women living in those states.
Doctors are showing -- through their words and actions -- that they are reluctant to practice in places where making the best decision for a patient could result in huge fines or even a prison sentence. And when clinics that provide abortions close their doors, all the other services offered there also shut down, including regular exams, breast cancer screenings, and contraception.
The concern about repercussions for women's health is being raised not just by abortion rights advocates. One recent warning comes from Jerome Adams, MD, MPH, who served as U.S. surgeon general in the Trump administration.
In a tweet threadopens in a new tab or window in April, Adams wrote that "the tradeoff of a restricted access (and criminalizing doctors) only approach to decreasing abortions could end up being that you actually make pregnancy less safe for everyone, and increase infant and maternal mortality."
An early indication of that impending medical "brain drain" came in February 2023, when 76% of respondents in a survey of more than 2,000 current and future physiciansopens in a new tab or window said they would not even apply to work or train in states with abortion restrictions. "In other words," wrote the study's authors in an opinion article the following monthopens in a new tab or window, "many qualified candidates would no longer even consider working or training in more than half of U.S. states."
Indeed, states with abortion bans saw a larger decline in medical school seniors applying for residency in 2023 compared with states without bans, according to a study from the Association of American Medical Collegesopens in a new tab or window. While applications for OB-GYN residencies were down nationwide, the decrease in states with complete abortion bans was more than twice as large as in states with no restrictions (10.5% vs 5.2%).
That means fewer doctors to perform critical preventive care like Pap smears and screenings for sexually transmitted infections, which can lead to infertility.
Care for pregnant women specifically is at risk, as hospitals in rural areas close maternity wards because they can't find enough professionals to staff them -- a problem that predated the abortion ruling but has only gotten worse since.
In March, Bonner General Health, the only hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, announced it would discontinue its labor and delivery servicesopens in a new tab or window, in part because of "Idaho's legal and political climate" that includes state legislators continuing to "introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care."
Heart-wrenching reporting from around the country shows that abortion bans are also imperiling the health of some patients who experience miscarriageopens in a new tab or window and other nonviable pregnanciesopens in a new tab or window. Earlier this year, a pregnant womanopens in a new tab or window with a nonviable fetus in Oklahoma was told to wait in the parking lot until she got sicker after being informed that doctors "can't touch you unless you are crashing in front of us."
A study by researchers from the State University of New York at Buffalo published in Women's Health Issues found that doctors practicing in states with restrictive abortion policies are less likelyopens in a new tab or window than those in states with supportive abortion policies to have been trained to perform the same early abortion procedures that are used for women experiencing miscarriages early in pregnancy.
But it's more than a lack of doctors that could complicate pregnancies and births. States with the toughest abortion restrictions are also the least likely to offer support servicesopens in a new tab or window for low-income mothers and babies. Even before the overturn of Roe, a report from the Commonwealth Fundopens in a new tab or window, a nonpartisan research group, found that maternal death rates in states with abortion restrictions or bans were 62% higher than in states where abortion was more readily available.
Women who know their pregnancies could become high-risk are thinking twice about getting or being pregnant in states with abortion restrictions. Carmen Broesder, an Idaho woman who chronicled her difficulties getting care for a miscarriage in a series of viral videosopens in a new tab or window on TikTok, told ABC Newsopens in a new tab or window she does not plan to try to get pregnant again.
"Why would I want to go through my daughter almost losing her mom again to have another child?" she said. "That seems selfish and wrong."
The anti-abortion movement once appeared more sensitive to arguments that its policies neglect the needs of women and children, a charge made most famously by former Rep. Barney Frankopens in a new tab or window (D-Mass.), who once said: "Conservatives believe that from the standpoint of the federal government, life begins at conception and ends at birth."
In fact, an icon of the anti-abortion movement -- Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who died in 2007 -- made a point of partneringopens in a new tab or window with liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on legislation to expand Medicaid coverage and provide more benefits to address infant mortality in the late 1980s.
Few anti-abortion groups are following that example by pushing policies to make it easier for people to get pregnant, give birth, and raise children. Most of those efforts are flying under the radar.
This year, Americans United for Life and Democrats for Life of America put out a joint position paperopens in a new tab or window urging policymakers to "make birth free." Among their suggestions are automatic insurance coverage, without deductibles or copays, for pregnancy and childbirth; eliminating payment incentives for cesarean sections and in-hospital deliveries; and a "monthly maternal stipend" for the first 2 years of a child's life.
"Making birth free to American mothers can and should be a national unifier in a particularly divided time," the document states. Such a policy could not only make it easier for women to start families, but it could also address the nation's dismal record on maternal mortalityopens in a new tab or window.
In a year when the same Republican lawmakers who are supporting a national abortion ban are even more vehemently pushing for large federal budget cuts, however, a make-birth-free policy seems unlikely to advance very far or very quickly.
That leaves abortion opponents at something of a crossroads: Will they follow Hyde's example and champion policies that expand and protect access to care? Or will women's health suffer under the anti-abortion movement's victory?
HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner, who has covered healthcare for more than 30 years.
"
"Anti-abortion laws will continue to cause suffering, fear and righteous anger as they erode the remaining vestiges of a health care system that is already devolving towards a collapse that will see greater and greater disparity and discrimination in access and delivery—the exact opposite of the personal freedoms, equality and life that our constitution promises us and to which Americans once aspired. Politically, socially and medically, the spread of these abortion bans and reproductively repressive laws are a looming debacle for the US."
Abortion Bans Are Putting Basic Healthcare at Risk
— New laws in conservative states are driving off doctors and closing clinics
by Julie Rovner, KFF Health News May 28, 2023
The rush in conservative states to ban abortion after the overturn of Roe v. Wade is resulting in a startling consequence that abortion opponents may not have considered: fewer medical services available for all women living in those states.
Doctors are showing -- through their words and actions -- that they are reluctant to practice in places where making the best decision for a patient could result in huge fines or even a prison sentence. And when clinics that provide abortions close their doors, all the other services offered there also shut down, including regular exams, breast cancer screenings, and contraception.
The concern about repercussions for women's health is being raised not just by abortion rights advocates. One recent warning comes from Jerome Adams, MD, MPH, who served as U.S. surgeon general in the Trump administration.
In a tweet threadopens in a new tab or window in April, Adams wrote that "the tradeoff of a restricted access (and criminalizing doctors) only approach to decreasing abortions could end up being that you actually make pregnancy less safe for everyone, and increase infant and maternal mortality."
An early indication of that impending medical "brain drain" came in February 2023, when 76% of respondents in a survey of more than 2,000 current and future physiciansopens in a new tab or window said they would not even apply to work or train in states with abortion restrictions. "In other words," wrote the study's authors in an opinion article the following monthopens in a new tab or window, "many qualified candidates would no longer even consider working or training in more than half of U.S. states."
Indeed, states with abortion bans saw a larger decline in medical school seniors applying for residency in 2023 compared with states without bans, according to a study from the Association of American Medical Collegesopens in a new tab or window. While applications for OB-GYN residencies were down nationwide, the decrease in states with complete abortion bans was more than twice as large as in states with no restrictions (10.5% vs 5.2%).
That means fewer doctors to perform critical preventive care like Pap smears and screenings for sexually transmitted infections, which can lead to infertility.
Care for pregnant women specifically is at risk, as hospitals in rural areas close maternity wards because they can't find enough professionals to staff them -- a problem that predated the abortion ruling but has only gotten worse since.
In March, Bonner General Health, the only hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, announced it would discontinue its labor and delivery servicesopens in a new tab or window, in part because of "Idaho's legal and political climate" that includes state legislators continuing to "introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care."
Heart-wrenching reporting from around the country shows that abortion bans are also imperiling the health of some patients who experience miscarriageopens in a new tab or window and other nonviable pregnanciesopens in a new tab or window. Earlier this year, a pregnant womanopens in a new tab or window with a nonviable fetus in Oklahoma was told to wait in the parking lot until she got sicker after being informed that doctors "can't touch you unless you are crashing in front of us."
A study by researchers from the State University of New York at Buffalo published in Women's Health Issues found that doctors practicing in states with restrictive abortion policies are less likelyopens in a new tab or window than those in states with supportive abortion policies to have been trained to perform the same early abortion procedures that are used for women experiencing miscarriages early in pregnancy.
But it's more than a lack of doctors that could complicate pregnancies and births. States with the toughest abortion restrictions are also the least likely to offer support servicesopens in a new tab or window for low-income mothers and babies. Even before the overturn of Roe, a report from the Commonwealth Fundopens in a new tab or window, a nonpartisan research group, found that maternal death rates in states with abortion restrictions or bans were 62% higher than in states where abortion was more readily available.
Women who know their pregnancies could become high-risk are thinking twice about getting or being pregnant in states with abortion restrictions. Carmen Broesder, an Idaho woman who chronicled her difficulties getting care for a miscarriage in a series of viral videosopens in a new tab or window on TikTok, told ABC Newsopens in a new tab or window she does not plan to try to get pregnant again.
"Why would I want to go through my daughter almost losing her mom again to have another child?" she said. "That seems selfish and wrong."
The anti-abortion movement once appeared more sensitive to arguments that its policies neglect the needs of women and children, a charge made most famously by former Rep. Barney Frankopens in a new tab or window (D-Mass.), who once said: "Conservatives believe that from the standpoint of the federal government, life begins at conception and ends at birth."
In fact, an icon of the anti-abortion movement -- Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who died in 2007 -- made a point of partneringopens in a new tab or window with liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on legislation to expand Medicaid coverage and provide more benefits to address infant mortality in the late 1980s.
Few anti-abortion groups are following that example by pushing policies to make it easier for people to get pregnant, give birth, and raise children. Most of those efforts are flying under the radar.
This year, Americans United for Life and Democrats for Life of America put out a joint position paperopens in a new tab or window urging policymakers to "make birth free." Among their suggestions are automatic insurance coverage, without deductibles or copays, for pregnancy and childbirth; eliminating payment incentives for cesarean sections and in-hospital deliveries; and a "monthly maternal stipend" for the first 2 years of a child's life.
"Making birth free to American mothers can and should be a national unifier in a particularly divided time," the document states. Such a policy could not only make it easier for women to start families, but it could also address the nation's dismal record on maternal mortalityopens in a new tab or window.
In a year when the same Republican lawmakers who are supporting a national abortion ban are even more vehemently pushing for large federal budget cuts, however, a make-birth-free policy seems unlikely to advance very far or very quickly.
That leaves abortion opponents at something of a crossroads: Will they follow Hyde's example and champion policies that expand and protect access to care? Or will women's health suffer under the anti-abortion movement's victory?
HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner, who has covered healthcare for more than 30 years.
"
"Anti-abortion laws will continue to cause suffering, fear and righteous anger as they erode the remaining vestiges of a health care system that is already devolving towards a collapse that will see greater and greater disparity and discrimination in access and delivery—the exact opposite of the personal freedoms, equality and life that our constitution promises us and to which Americans once aspired. Politically, socially and medically, the spread of these abortion bans and reproductively repressive laws are a looming debacle for the US."
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
Snip...
"
These preliminary findings from the Care Post-
Roe Study document a wide range of harm that
is occurring among people with the capacity for pregnancy living in states with abortion bans.
The large number of cases involving obstetric complications in the second trimester confirms findings from Texas showing how changes in practice after the state’s 2021 6-week abortion ban were associated with a doubling of severe morbidity for patients presenting with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes and other complications before 22 weeks’ gestation.8 Our findings about the challenges treating ectopic pregnancy—particularly cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy—are very concerning,
given clear recommendations for terminating these pregnancies to avoid serious complications and
risk of death.6 While this study is so far only able to collect information about immediate and shorter-term harms, it is likely there are also longer-term effects
of being delayed and denied care for patients in situations similar to those described in the narratives. Longer-term effects could include loss of fertility
and chronic pelvic pain due to infection or surgery,
or heart attack and stroke related to uncontrolled hypertension, as well as effects on mental health.
In addition to documenting serious and immediate health risks experienced by pregnant patients, the cases presented in this report also provide evidence of the emotional and financial costs of being denied care close to home in the post-Dobbs era. These burdens were made more severe when they were overlaid upon the complex situations in which
these patients found themselves, including being pregnant with a fetus with anomalies incompatible with life, having limited financial resources, or being a young adolescent. The logistical challenges were particularly acute for those who had to arrange care for their children, get time off work, or pay for travel to a distant state.
While it is the patients in these narratives who faced risks to their health from care denied or delayed,
it is clear that the clinicians who care for these patients are also suffering. Health care providers described feeling moral distress when they were unable to provide evidence-based care that put their patients’ health at risk, as well as frustration about the additional work involved in trying to find options for care in other states. In some cases,
the dissatisfaction was so extreme that clinicians considered moving to a state with fewer restrictions on care. In addition, health care providers highlighted how these restrictions on care increased resource utilization, both by increasing the cost of services, particularly for treating complications, as well as by diverting clinician time away from other patients.
"
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
"
Japan approved its first abortion pill in April, decades after countries like the US and France, for use by women who are up to nine weeks pregnant.
The green light finally gives Japanese women an option to abort pregnancy without surgery, and empowers our rights in a country ranked 116th in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report last year — near Burkina Faso and Tajikistan — and where women must consult with doctors to get oral contraceptives.
But it’s hard for us to be overjoyed about our progress, as access to the treatment is highly restricted.
The new two-drug regimen is called a Mefeego pack, made by British firm LinePharma KK. It consists of mifepristone — which blocks progesterone, a hormone necessary to continue a pregnancy — and misoprostol, which induces contractions. Access will be limited to hospitals. And it won’t be covered by insurance, which will make it difficult for many women to afford.
While the price hasn’t been disclosed yet, the Mefeego pack is estimated to be around ¥50,000 ($354). That’ll make the full procedure — from tests to the drug and hospitalization — cost about ¥100,000, only little less than a surgery, according to the Japan Association of Obstetrics and Gynecologists.
Price signs at a drugstore in Tokyo last year. The country’s newly-approved abortion pill will only be available in hospitals. Photographer: Soichiro Koriyama/Bloomberg
The abortion pill’s approval has been supported by the Japanese public. But conservative politicians aren’t in favor, and the restrictions are partly the result of their opposition. They believe allowing the option may encourage promiscuity, Kenji Shibuya director at the Tokyo Foundation for Policy Research, told me.
“In Japan, abortion is still stigmatized and the existing mechanism for abortion pills limits access, particularly in rural areas,” he said. “It’s questionable how many physicians actively respect and provide contraception and abortion services as a fundamental right for women.”
Medicine is still a male-dominated field in Japan, where less than a quarter of all doctors are women, according to the health ministry. What’s more, Japan requires married women get consent from their husbands before having an abortion — with some exceptions, like rape cases — according to the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Japan approved its firstemergency contraceptive in 2011, also years after such treatments were available in Europe. It permitted its first birth-control pill in 1999, after nine years of deliberation.
From time to time, I see local news stories here about dead newborns being discovered in public places, and it makes me ache as a mother. Wider access to abortion pills could potentially help some parents from making such horrible choices. —Kanoko Matsuyama
"
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
"
It’s been a year since the Dobbs decision overruled Roe v. Wade. How did this impact reproductive health across the nation? Here’s how the scientific story has unfolded, thus far.
Source: Guttmacher Institute, “Interactive Map: U.S. Abortion Policies and Access After Roe,” policies in effect as of June 21, 2023.
This drastic shift has caused a few things to happen.
Internet Searching Before and After the Leaked Draft Decision (May 2, 2022) and the Final Ruling (June 24, 2022) by the US Supreme Court on Dobbs. Source: JAMA Network. Here.
But it’s not clear whether the laws have actually reduced the number of abortions on a national level. Did these people remain pregnant or did they obtain an abortion outside the legal system?
We don’t know.
Percent change in U.S. MD senior OB/GYN applicants from the previous application cycle by state abortion-ban status.
2. Media is highlighting abortions more. Abortion Onscreen found more abortion plotlines on TV than any previous year, which will help normalize abortion care.
"
The one year (scientific) story of the fall of Roe v. Wade
|
| |||||||
State of affairs
Not to anyone’s surprise, a number of states quickly banned or heavily restricted abortions. This means, today, 1 in 4 women of reproductive age live where an abortion is banned or heavily restricted. |
This drastic shift has caused a few things to happen.
Internet searches for reproductive care increased
There was an incredible jump in internet searches for reproductive care. This was particularly pronounced in states that had trigger laws. While internet searches came down again, they remained higher than before. |
Change in number of abortions is… unclear
There have been 25,640 fewer legal abortions after Roe fell compared to before.But it’s not clear whether the laws have actually reduced the number of abortions on a national level. Did these people remain pregnant or did they obtain an abortion outside the legal system?
We don’t know.
A clear shift in where people get abortion care
Many people traveled to states where they could get care.- There were 93,575 fewer legal abortions in states that banned or severely restricted abortion.
- But a increase of 69,285 legal abortions in states where abortion remained legal.
- Travel times to abortion facilities increased by 3 times.
- The largest increases were in the South. In Texas, for example, the new travel time to the nearest abortion facility increased by almost a full workday.
- American Indian or Alaska Native, Black, and Hispanic populations experienced large absolute increases in travel time to abortion facilities.
- More than 42,000 requests for abortion medications across 30 states.
- Requests in every state, regardless of policy, increased after the leak and the formal announcement.
- States with total bans had the highest increase in requests. Louisiana had the most medication requests followed by Mississippi and Arkansas.
Negative impact on physicians and care
The Dobbs decision directly impacted physicians in three ways:- A pronounced decrease in the public’s expression of trust in clinicians and health information, overall.
- Decrease in residency applications in states with complete bans. Recent medical school graduates were particularly avoidant of OB-GYN residencies.
 |
- Most OB-GYNs (68%) reported the ruling worsened their ability to manage pregnancy-related emergencies by removing decision-making autonomy and their ability to practice within standard levels of care.
Increase in maternal mortality is likely
How many women have died because of this decision? This hasn’t been directly measured, but there have been three separate analyses dancing around the subject:- Most OB-GYNs report that the Dobbs decision worsened pregnancy-related mortality.
 |
- A recent publication found that in states that restricted abortions from 1974-2016, suicide rates were 6% higher for women of reproductive age. (Note this study used data before Dobbs, but it gives a peek at what we may be facing today.)
- A Commonwealth Fund report found pre-Dobbs maternal death rates, overall, were 62% higher in abortion-restriction states compared to abortion-access states (28.8 vs. 17.8 per 100,000 births). (Note this was also before Dobbs.)
 |
There are … silver linings
I don’t know what to call these, but there is some good news:- More public support for abortions than ever before.
 |
- TV highlighted barriers to access more than previous years, which is helpful in more accurately depicting the situation.
- However, 80% of characters were white and portrayed as middle class (45%) or wealthy (35%), which does not represent reality.
Bottom line
Scientific evidence from Year 1 shows Dobbs significantly changed abortion care in the U.S.: where to go and how to get it. Tens of thousands of women’s lives were impacted. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of the story; we’ll see how it continues to unfold in Year 2."
ItsMainelyYou
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
- Messages
- 5,136
This is the current proposal in my state, I hope it passes.
apnews.com
Maine bill proposing one of country's least restrictive abortion laws narrowly clears House vote
A proposal to expand access to abortions narrowly passed in the Maine House, clearing the first legislative hurdle after an emotional floor debate. The 74-72 vote late Thursday was closer than expected after at least one Democratic co-sponsor had a change of heart, joining lawmakers opposed to...
apnews.com
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,483
@Starstruck8, You should probably ask questions regarding abortion in this thread.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,483
@Starstruck8, We have a group of people in this country who do not feel woman should have the right to make medical decisions regarding their own body. As you might have guessed, this angers a lot of women.
Wealthy woman will always be able to have a safe and legal abortion. They can simply fly or drive to another state where abortion is still legal. For now, this will affect poor woman living in states with abortion bans.
The majority of people in the country feel abortion should be safe and legal. It’s been sad and upsetting to see a group of people making decisions against what the majority of Americans want.
Wealthy woman will always be able to have a safe and legal abortion. They can simply fly or drive to another state where abortion is still legal. For now, this will affect poor woman living in states with abortion bans.
The majority of people in the country feel abortion should be safe and legal. It’s been sad and upsetting to see a group of people making decisions against what the majority of Americans want.
Starstruck8
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 13, 2021
- Messages
- 746
I had this thread in mind when I commented on Kenny's post.
As a foreigner, I'd be out of line to say too much about the issue itself. Except that the Supreme Court decision, though expected, was still a shock - isn't the US supposed to be an advanced country? It's also a worry, because bad ideas from the US have a way of filtering through to us in Australia.
But here's what interests me. Almost all (if not actually all) of the many posts here support abortion rights. (I haven't followed the thread regularly, but this is how it seems.) But evidently a fair proportion of US voters think otherwise, or there wouldn't be so many politicians courting their votes. So are American PSers unrepresentative of typical Americans? Well, yes. The're overwhelmingly women. But that's not enough to explain the difference. A quick look at some polling suggested that about 35% of American women oppose abortion, a minority, but not negligible. So are PSers atypical in other relevant ways (e.g. richer than average)? Probably. But I can't help thinking that some PSers must be refraining from comment because they know they are in a minority here. This was Betty Baguetts's point in the other thread.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,471
Honestly, good.
If “you” (generic “you”) don’t support women’s rights to comprehensive healthcare or the principles of vaccination, “you’re” toxic to any society “you” inflict “yourself” upon and I for one don’t want “you” in my life, physical or virtual.
I wouldn’t normally be so blunt in my opinion but the way this country is headed, there’s no time or freedom for anything else.
Last edited:
Starstruck8
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 13, 2021
- Messages
- 746
Well, speaking for myself, I, too, would be happy not having to hear from 'deplorables'. But ignoring them won't make them go away, nor will it stop them voting. A country that's divided into groups that literally don't want to talk to each other has big problems. I hope this story ends well, but it's not looking good right now.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
PSers are not the "typical" Americans. Many people are not smart (sorry but it's the truth, just look at these statistics) and many people want to restrict the rights of others. Men and women alike. Shocking I know but true. Lots of self righteous Americans (I cannot speak for other countries and their people) and it's disgusting.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,471
With all the gerrymandering - fear and religious extremism not only has a voice, that voice is much more powerful than it has any reason to be, and does its best to subdue any differing perspectives. It’s a really terrible state of affairs here. My Australian and Kiwi friends are all baffled.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,483
@Starstruck8, People are free to state their opinons in this thread. If someone chooses not to, that is their choice. No one is stopping them.
Thank you @yssie for your comments in your last post. It allowed me to delete the post i just wrote that wasn‘t nearly as direct and concise.
As always you summed this up perfectly in a few sentences.
Thank you @yssie for your comments in your last post. It allowed me to delete the post i just wrote that wasn‘t nearly as direct and concise.
As always you summed this up perfectly in a few sentences.
nkarma
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Messages
- 647
@Starstruck8 - IMO a lot of people in the US are siloing themselves. I'm from there but haven't lived there for over a decade. When I come back to visit and speak to family or strangers (uber drivers etc) from opposite sides of the political spectrum, I know they either have moved thousands of miles or dream of doing so to be in a community that only supports their ideology. However, my aunt who has done this is disturbed that the 'other-side' are now moving to her town. So pricescope is the same. There are I'm sure many other platforms where you can voice anti-abortion views and be supported.
musicloveranthony
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,690
Succinct and exact
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
"
August 9, 2023
August 9, 2023
Once again, abortion access has won a victory at the polls. |
Yes, last night’s victory was merely a procedural one. Voters in Ohio soundly rejected a Republican-backed attempt to raise the threshold for changing the state’s Constitution to 60 percent in a ballot initiative. A follow-up election will take place in November, in which Ohio voters will decide whether to establish a right to abortion in the state’s Constitution. A simple majority will decide the outcome. |
But last night’s result was still significant. Ohio is an increasingly conservative state, which Donald Trump won by eight percentage points in 2020 and where state legislators voted to ban almost all abortions (a policy that a judge has blocked for now). And yet voters rejected a ballot proposal that everybody understood was meant to help restrict abortion. It wasn’t close, either. The proposal failed, 43 percent to 57 percent, according to the latest count. |
Ohio becomes the fourth red state, along with Kansas, Kentucky and Montana, to have voted on the abortion-rights side of a referendum since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer. |
You can read more coverage of the Ohio vote here. In today’s newsletter, we look at the other states where the abortion issue may go before voters. |
Ohio is one of 10 states that both significantly restricts abortion (or soon might) and allows citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives. The others are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota. |
All of these states except for Arizona voted Republican in the 2020 presidential election, a sign that many of their voters favor significant abortion restrictions. Consider these results from a recent Times/Siena College nationwide poll: |
|
Still, a ballot initiative establishing abortion access would have a chance to pass in any of the 10 states. That’s one of the lessons of the Ohio result. Abortion-rights measures tend to receive overwhelming support from Democratic voters and some support from Republicans. |
Yet there is an important caveat to abortion’s political potency: The issue does not appear to swing most general elections. In statewide elections in Florida, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere last year, Democrats tried to defeat Republicans by emphasizing their hostility to abortion. But most Republicans — Mike DeWine and J.D. Vance in Ohio, Ron DeSantis and Marco Rubio in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas — won easily. At best, the Supreme Court decision helped Democrats in a limited number of very close midterm elections. |
How could this be? Most voters care about many issues. And on several other high-profile issues today, like public safety and border security, the Democratic Party is arguably as out of step with public opinion as the Republican Party is on abortion. (This is a theme of Ruy Teixeira’s recent writings for the Liberal Patriot newsletter on Substack). |
At least for now, ballot initiatives — as opposed to ousting otherwise popular Republican politicians — appear to be one of the few ways for advocates to expand abortion access in conservative states. Abortion rights groups got off to a slow start after the Supreme Court’s decision, as we explained in a previous newsletter. The groups have struggled to agree on a nationwide strategy or to commit to an ambitious timetable. |
As a result, only a few of the 10 states appear likely to vote on abortion soon.
|
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,848
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,483
This really shocks me.
SparklieBug
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,420
I live outside the US, and am past childbearing years. An ad like this makes me suspicious—a woman expresses interest, identifies themselves, and...gets arrested?
ETA: I have been watching some spy vs. spy-type shows on TV, so perhaps this has influenced my viewpoint.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,483
I live outside the US, and am past childbearing years. An ad like this makes me suspicious—a woman expresses interest, identifies themselves, and...gets arrested?
ETA: I have been watching some spy vs. spy-type shows on TV, so perhaps this has influenced my viewpoint.
All I could think when I read @Austina‘s post was when will we read about her arrest or the arrest of the person who traveled with her.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,127
"
from Bloomberg dot com
from Bloomberg dot com
| |
| " |
300x240.png)