SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Pro-choice and anti-choice protesters demonstrate outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in California. (Photo: Steve Rhodes/Flickr/cc)
Anti-Choice States Are Worse for Women and Children, Says Study
States that don't prioritize reproductive rights, don't prioritize healthcare for women and children in general
Aug 01, 2017
A new study challenges the conservative idea that abortion restrictions are put in place by legislators who simply want to protect women's health and safety.
The Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health find (pdf) that states with the most restrictions to abortion access tend to have laws that put other healthcare services out of women's reach as well--and to have worse health outcomes for women and children.
"In states where it is harder for women to make choices about their pregnancy and to have a safe abortion, we also see that there are fewer policies in place that could support women throughout their life course, including during pregnancy," said Terri-Ann Thompson of Ibis Reproductive Health.
The study ranked states based on how many policies they had in place to support women and children's health and wellness needs, compared with each state's restrictive abortion laws. Louisiana and Texas were found to be two of the most restrictive states, with 13 and 11 restrictive abortion laws, respectively. Both states had few laws aimed at providing women and children with healthcare, health education, and economic support, and had higher-than-average rates of maternal and infant mortality.
Abortion restrictions studied by the groups included mandatory counseling before an abortion, restrictions on abortion coverage in private and public health insurance plans, and restrictions placed on health clinics that provide abortions, mandating that such clinics must be equipped as ambulatory surgical centers.
"In states where it is harder for women to make choices about their pregnancy and to have a safe abortion, we also see that there are fewer policies in place that could support women throughout their life course, including during pregnancy."--Terri-Ann Thompson, Ibis Reproductive Health
The latter restriction was the subject of a 2016 Supreme Court case, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, which pro-choice advocates say exemplified the recent "pro-women's health" posturing of the anti-choice movement. In it, the Supreme Court struck down a restriction placed on an abortion clinic in Texas stating that the clinic had to be equipped with a large operating room and wide hallways, and that doctors in the clinic had to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The Court deemed the restrictions to be medically unnecessary.
But Tuesday's report notes that while the 2016 decision "was cause for celebration, the recent election has signaled a changing landscape for abortion access...Our opponents are abandoning their guise of caring about women's health and shifting their policy strategy to privilege an embryo or fetus above a woman."
The study says that while lawmakers in Texas, Indiana, and Louisiana have recently worked to pass a number of laws requiring embryonic and fetal tissue to be buried or cremated, "they all rank among the lowest in children's health and well-being outcomes."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A new study challenges the conservative idea that abortion restrictions are put in place by legislators who simply want to protect women's health and safety.
The Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health find (pdf) that states with the most restrictions to abortion access tend to have laws that put other healthcare services out of women's reach as well--and to have worse health outcomes for women and children.
"In states where it is harder for women to make choices about their pregnancy and to have a safe abortion, we also see that there are fewer policies in place that could support women throughout their life course, including during pregnancy," said Terri-Ann Thompson of Ibis Reproductive Health.
The study ranked states based on how many policies they had in place to support women and children's health and wellness needs, compared with each state's restrictive abortion laws. Louisiana and Texas were found to be two of the most restrictive states, with 13 and 11 restrictive abortion laws, respectively. Both states had few laws aimed at providing women and children with healthcare, health education, and economic support, and had higher-than-average rates of maternal and infant mortality.
Abortion restrictions studied by the groups included mandatory counseling before an abortion, restrictions on abortion coverage in private and public health insurance plans, and restrictions placed on health clinics that provide abortions, mandating that such clinics must be equipped as ambulatory surgical centers.
"In states where it is harder for women to make choices about their pregnancy and to have a safe abortion, we also see that there are fewer policies in place that could support women throughout their life course, including during pregnancy."--Terri-Ann Thompson, Ibis Reproductive Health
The latter restriction was the subject of a 2016 Supreme Court case, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, which pro-choice advocates say exemplified the recent "pro-women's health" posturing of the anti-choice movement. In it, the Supreme Court struck down a restriction placed on an abortion clinic in Texas stating that the clinic had to be equipped with a large operating room and wide hallways, and that doctors in the clinic had to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The Court deemed the restrictions to be medically unnecessary.
But Tuesday's report notes that while the 2016 decision "was cause for celebration, the recent election has signaled a changing landscape for abortion access...Our opponents are abandoning their guise of caring about women's health and shifting their policy strategy to privilege an embryo or fetus above a woman."
The study says that while lawmakers in Texas, Indiana, and Louisiana have recently worked to pass a number of laws requiring embryonic and fetal tissue to be buried or cremated, "they all rank among the lowest in children's health and well-being outcomes."
A new study challenges the conservative idea that abortion restrictions are put in place by legislators who simply want to protect women's health and safety.
The Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health find (pdf) that states with the most restrictions to abortion access tend to have laws that put other healthcare services out of women's reach as well--and to have worse health outcomes for women and children.
"In states where it is harder for women to make choices about their pregnancy and to have a safe abortion, we also see that there are fewer policies in place that could support women throughout their life course, including during pregnancy," said Terri-Ann Thompson of Ibis Reproductive Health.
The study ranked states based on how many policies they had in place to support women and children's health and wellness needs, compared with each state's restrictive abortion laws. Louisiana and Texas were found to be two of the most restrictive states, with 13 and 11 restrictive abortion laws, respectively. Both states had few laws aimed at providing women and children with healthcare, health education, and economic support, and had higher-than-average rates of maternal and infant mortality.
Abortion restrictions studied by the groups included mandatory counseling before an abortion, restrictions on abortion coverage in private and public health insurance plans, and restrictions placed on health clinics that provide abortions, mandating that such clinics must be equipped as ambulatory surgical centers.
"In states where it is harder for women to make choices about their pregnancy and to have a safe abortion, we also see that there are fewer policies in place that could support women throughout their life course, including during pregnancy."--Terri-Ann Thompson, Ibis Reproductive Health
The latter restriction was the subject of a 2016 Supreme Court case, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, which pro-choice advocates say exemplified the recent "pro-women's health" posturing of the anti-choice movement. In it, the Supreme Court struck down a restriction placed on an abortion clinic in Texas stating that the clinic had to be equipped with a large operating room and wide hallways, and that doctors in the clinic had to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The Court deemed the restrictions to be medically unnecessary.
But Tuesday's report notes that while the 2016 decision "was cause for celebration, the recent election has signaled a changing landscape for abortion access...Our opponents are abandoning their guise of caring about women's health and shifting their policy strategy to privilege an embryo or fetus above a woman."
The study says that while lawmakers in Texas, Indiana, and Louisiana have recently worked to pass a number of laws requiring embryonic and fetal tissue to be buried or cremated, "they all rank among the lowest in children's health and well-being outcomes."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.