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."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy