Pro-choice and anti-choice protesters demonstrate outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in California. (Photo: Steve Rhodes/Flickr/cc)
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just hours away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.