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
center for reproductive rights
New Research Details 'Human and Economic Toll' of US Abortion Bans
"Abortion bans don't stay in exam rooms," said the Center for Reproductive Rights president. "They reshape communities, workplaces, and state economies."
Mar 09, 2026
With attention directed at President Donald Trump's war on immigrants across the United States and various international conflicts, including the assault on Iran, there hasn't been much prominent news coverage in recent weeks about a key issue of the 2024 campaign—GOP abortion bans—but people nationwide continue to endure the impacts of such policies, as revealed in a Monday report from the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The Price of Safety: Stories of Abortions Denied, Careers Disrupted, and States Left Behind features various profiles demonstrating "the human and economic toll" of abortion bans, which right-wing policymakers have enacted or intensified since the US Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022.
The anthology uses stories from patients, doctors, business leaders, and others to "show the real-world consequences of laws that criminalize standard medical care," said Nancy Northup, the center's president, in a statement. "Abortion bans don't stay in exam rooms. They reshape communities, workplaces, and state economies. As long as politicians keep restricting care, families will keep moving, clinicians will keep leaving, and states will keep watching their competitive edge slip away."
"Our daughter's spine was severely abnormal, her brain hadn't formed correctly, and she only had one kidney... I did everything by the book medically, but the experience still made me feel like a criminal for seeking evidence-based care for a lethal fetal diagnosis."
Dani Mathisen, "a Fort Worth native from a family of physicians," discovered during a routine anatomy scan with her OB-GYN, who is also her aunt, that she needed an abortion, 18 weeks into a planned pregnancy. As she explained, "Our daughter's spine was severely abnormal, her brain hadn't formed correctly, and she only had one kidney."
Texas had banned abortions after six weeks and allowed private citizens to sue anyone who helped a pregnant person access care. According to Mathisen: "My mom, also a doctor, stepped in anyway. She found a clinic in New Mexico, booked the flights and hotel, called the staff, and handed us an envelope of cash. We paid for the abortion with cash out of fear of leaving a paper trail tying Texas credit cards to out-of-state abortion care. I did everything by the book medically, but the experience still made me feel like a criminal for seeking evidence-based care for a lethal fetal diagnosis."
"I had always imagined building my career in Texas," she added. "After this, I chose an OB-GYN residency in Hawaii because I needed full-spectrum training—including abortion care—and I couldn't get that in Texas."
Mathisen wasn't alone in fleeing that state. Amanda Ducach, CEO and co-founder of an artificial intelligence startup focused on women's health, shared how she "built Ema in Houston, and Texas shaped our earliest users and our mission," but when Roe fell, she "was seven and a half months into a high-risk pregnancy."
"Suddenly, even if I were to face a life-threatening emergency, I wasn't sure I'd receive timely care. My doctors weren't sure either," Ducach detailed. "It also changed how I thought about my company, and our responsibility to the people who rely on us through our partner platforms."
"After months of legal review and deep conversations with my team, I decided to relocate both my family and Ema's headquarters to Massachusetts where abortion access is protected under state law," she continued. "I also gave employees the option to work from any location, which brought immediate relief."
"Suddenly, even if I were to face a life-threatening emergency, I wasn't sure I'd receive timely care. My doctors weren't sure either."
Elizabeth Weller also left Texas. She said that "the decision cost us $25,000+ in income, distanced us from our community, and upended the future we had envisioned. But after the pregnancy complications I faced, it was painfully clear: Texas no longer provided the basic medical care necessary to have a child."
So did Dr. Judy Levison, who spent over two decades practicing and teaching obstetrics and gynecology in the state. After "watching abortion bans turn routine medical care into a legal minefield," she retired, moved to Colorado, and "began volunteering with an abortion support group."
It's not just Texas. Kayla Smith said that she left Idaho—"where I'd lived for 13 years, gone to college, met my husband, built our careers, and wanted to grow our family"—for Washington state. She explained that just 48 hours after Idaho's ban took effect and "19 weeks into my pregnancy with my second child, we discovered that our baby had a severe, inoperable heart defect."
Tracy Young, "a first-generation American, a mother of four, and the co-founder of two technology companies," highlighted how abortion bans also outlaw proper treatment for people experiencing miscarriages. While she is based in San Francisco, California, Young began "losing a pregnancy I had deeply wanted" while traveling for work in Louisiana.
"Back home in California, my doctors told me that my body had not completed the miscarriage naturally. They prescribed misoprostol, and when that wasn't enough, performed a surgical procedure to prevent infection and complications," she said. "Today, abortion bans have made that same care illegal or heavily restricted in many states, including Louisiana where I miscarried."
Another business leader, Chris Webb, CEO and co-founder of ChowNow—an online ordering platform with offices in California and Missouri—publicly supported abortion access in 2019 by signing on to a coalition's "Don't Ban Equality" letter. After Roe's reversal, he sent out a company-wide email disclosing a girlfriend's abortion and offering to personally cover the travel costs of any employee who needed such care.
"Leaders owe employees honesty about where they stand—and action when basic rights are on the line," he said. "Abortion policies aren't just about healthcare. They're good for employers and good for people. When more companies speak up, there is safety in numbers. And in the long run, protecting your team protects your business—and is just the right thing to do."
"Reproductive rights are so crucial that Americans are uprooting their lives to ensure they have access to care."
The report's release coincided with the publication of a paper adapted from one prepared for the center by researchers who estimated "the market value of reproductive rights as capitalized into US housing markets."
The paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows that "total abortion bans reduced rents by an average of 2.2% from July 2022 through June 2025, with the effect reaching 4.0% in the most recent year. Over the same horizon, bans increased rental vacancy rates by an average of 1.1 percentage points, with the effect reaching 1.8 percentage points in the most recent year. Estimates for home values and homeowner vacancy rates are similar in magnitude but less precise."
The center's senior director, Julia Taylor Kennedy, said that "the economic data and the firsthand accounts are telling the same story... Reproductive rights are so crucial that Americans are uprooting their lives to ensure they have access to care. That means that, for employers and policymakers, abortion bans carry measurable workforce and competitiveness implications."
Despite such findings, Republican state and federal policymakers continue to restrict reproductive freedom. In recent months, the Trump administration quietly imposed an abortion ban at the US Department of Veterans Affairs and expanded the global gag rule.
Meanwhile, at the state level last month, Tennessee Republicans introduced legislation to make abortion a capital offense, and a sheriff's office in South Carolina launched an investigation into a fetus, estimated to be just 13-15 weeks, found at a water treatment plant, highlighting the rising criminalization of pregnancy loss.
Last week, the Marion County Superior Court granted a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of Indiana's near-total abortion ban, and Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita swiftly appealed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Texas House Passes Attack on Mailed Abortion Pills That 'Will Fuel Fear' Nationwide
"Texas: Land of the free! Also Texas: We want you to surveil your neighbor, see if they've missed their period, snoop through their trash and mail, and sue whoever sent them medication abortion."
Aug 29, 2025
Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives on Thursday night advanced another anti-abortion bounty hunter bill, this one taking aim at medications mailed from states that support reproductive freedom so Texans can choose to end pregnancies.
House Bill 7 passed 82-48 along party lines during Texas' second special legislative session of the year. The proposal from state Rep. Jeff Leach (R-67) still needs approval from the Senate—which previously passed similar legislation—before it heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. He has signed various attacks on reproductive rights, including Senate Bill 8, a 2021 state law that entices vigilantes with $10,000 bounties to enforce a six-week abortion ban.
Like S.B. 8, the new bill relies on lawsuits filed by private citizens. H.B. 7 would empower them to sue out-of-state healthcare providers, medication manufacturers, and anyone who mails or otherwise provides abortion pills to someone in the state for up to $100,000 in damages per violation—even if no abortion occurs. Under pressure from some anti-choice groups, Republicans added language allowing vigilantes to keep only $10,000; the rest would go to a charity they choose.
"It's designed to trap Texans into forced pregnancy," Shellie Hayes-McMahon, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, told the Houston Chronicle. "Instead of fixing the crisis they (Texas lawmakers) manufactured, they're doubling down to punish anyone who dares to help a Texan. This bill is not about safety, it's about control."
Republicans in the Texas House have introduced another way to try to harm patients, providers, and manufacturers in the state. HB 7 would allow anyone to sue a manufacturer, distributor, or provider of medication abortion—even without proof of care being provided.
[image or embed]
— Reproductive Freedom for All (@reproductivefreedomforall.org) August 29, 2025 at 10:34 AM
The bill is part of a broader effort to stop the flow of abortion medications—mifepristone and misoprostol—into states that have ramped up restrictions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority reversing Roe v. Wade in 2022.
As GOP lawmakers have worked to further restrict reproductive freedom, Democrat-controlled states have enacted "shield laws" to protect doctors and patients. Laws enabling telehealth abortions are key targets for Republican officials and far-right activists—including "anti-abortion legal terrorist" Jonathan Mitchell, the chief architect of S.B. 8 who's now representing a Texas man in a wrongful death case against a California doctor accused of providing pills that his girlfriend used to end her pregnancy.
The New York Times reported that "supporters hope and opponents fear" H.B. 7 "will serve as a model for other states to limit medication abortion by promoting a rash of lawsuits against medical providers, pharmaceutical companies, and companies such as FedEx or UPS that may ship the drugs."
Supporters and opponents also anticipate court battles over the bill itself. "Texas is sort of the tip of the spear," Marc Hearron, the associate director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Times. "It's setting up a clash."
H.B. 7 is "pushing up against the limits of how much a state can control," Hearron added. "Each state can have its own laws, but throughout our history, we have been able to travel across the country, send things across the country."
Texas: Land of the free! Also Texas: We want you to surveil your neighbor, see if they've missed their period, snoop through their trash and mail, and sue whoever sent them medication abortion. https://bit.ly/4lM2sXF
[image or embed]
— Center for Reproductive Rights (@reprorights.org) August 28, 2025 at 4:45 PM
After Thursday's vote, Blair Wallace, policy and advocacy strategist on reproductive freedom at the ACLU of Texas, warned in a statement that "H.B. 7 exports Texas' extreme abortion ban far beyond state borders."
"It will fuel fear among manufacturers and providers nationwide, while encouraging neighbors to police one another's reproductive lives, further isolating pregnant Texans, and punishing the people who care for them," she said. "We believe in a Texas where people have the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies and futures."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unconscionable': Trump Admin Blasted for Plan to Ban Abortions at VA Hospitals
"Those who fight for all our freedom must have the most basic freedom to control their own bodies and futures—and this rule robs them of it," said the head of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Aug 04, 2025
Advocates for veterans, reproductive rights campaigners, and Democrats in Congress on Monday continued to lambaste the Trump administration's quiet move to end abortion care for former U.S. service members and their relatives.
"Since taking office, the Trump administration has repeatedly attacked service members, veterans, and their families' access to basic reproductive care, including gender-affirming care," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a Monday statement.
Planned Parenthood and its leader have frequently criticized actions by President Donald Trump, including his signature on Republicans' recently passed budget reconciliation package that targets the group's clinics—which provide a range of healthcare services—by cutting them off from Medicaid funds if they continue to offer abortions.
"Those who fight for all our freedom must have the most basic freedom to control their own bodies and futures—and this rule robs them of it. Taking away access to healthcare shows us that the Trump administration will always put politics and retribution over people's lives," McGill Johnson said of the new proposal for veterans' care. "Planned Parenthood will never stop fighting to ensure everyone has access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive healthcare—no matter what."
The Trump Administration just moved to BAN abortion care for VETERANS, even in instances of rape and incest.This is just another attack on our veterans and reproductive health care.We owe it to our servicemembers to provide them the care they need.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ted Lieu (@reptedlieu.bsky.social) August 4, 2025 at 1:06 PM
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide abortion counseling and care for service members and beneficiaries in cases of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy threatened the health of the patient. On Friday, the VA proposed a rule that would "reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling from the medical benefits package," and the Civilian Health and Medical Program.
The document says the VA would continue treating ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages, and would allow abortion care "when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."
The proposal quickly drew rebuke from a range of critics, including U.S. lawmakers. Blasting the proposed rule as "disgusting and dangerous," Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said on social media Friday that the government "should not be able to impose a pregnancy on anyone—least of all survivors of rape, abuse, or those whose health is at risk."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who had advocated for the Biden administration's policy, declared Saturday that "Republicans don't care if your health is in danger, if you're a veteran, or if you've been raped—they want abortion outlawed everywhere, for everyone."
As the 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule began Monday, U.S. House Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Mark Takano (D-Calif.) warned that "stripping away access to essential reproductive healthcare at VA, the largest integrated healthcare network in the United States, puts veterans' lives at risk and violates the promise we made to them. Veterans have earned the right to healthcare. Full stop. This ban on reproductive healthcare will harm veterans and is dangerous."
The proposal makes clear that VA Secretary Doug Collins "is substituting his judgment for that of the hundreds of thousands of women veterans who have earned the freedom to make personal medical decisions in consultation with their providers," Takano said in a statement. "It also gags medical providers and does not allow them to provide complete and honest care to veterans who get their care from VA. Rolling back this rule is a direct attack on veterans' rights. It will jeopardize the lives of pregnant veterans across our country, especially those residing in states with total abortion bans and other reproductive healthcare restrictions, which have already led to preventable deaths."
Reproductive rights advocates have similarly weighed in over the past few days and highlighted the anti-choice state laws enacted since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision reversed Roe.
Katie O'Connor, senior director of federal abortion policy at the National Women's Law Center, said that "at a time when extremist lawmakers are passing cruel abortion bans and restrictions, this move only deepens the crisis those laws have created—stripping veterans of their reproductive freedom and creating even more confusion about where they can turn for care."
"Veterans already face unique challenges to their health and well-being, including experiencing PTSD, recovering from military sexual trauma, and facing an increased risk of suicide," she noted, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder. "Banning access to the full range of reproductive services, including abortion, further jeopardizes their health and safety. No one should have to travel hundreds of miles, endure financial hardship, or risk their health just to get the medical care they need. Our veterans deserve better."
Center for Reproductive Rights president and CEO Nancy Northup declared that "this administration is sending a clear message to veterans—that their health and dignity aren't worth defending. To devalue veterans in this way and take away life-changing healthcare would be unconscionable. This shows you just how extreme this administration's anti-abortion stance is—they would rather a veteran suffer severely than receive an abortion."
Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, a practicing OB-GYN and CEO of Power to Decide, also warned that the new "needlessly cruel policy change," if it goes through as expected, will harm veterans and "once again betrays our nation's commitment to them."
"Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 12 states have enacted total abortion bans, one additional state has no abortion clinics, and seven states have gestational restrictions often in effect so early that people don't even know they are pregnant," she explained. "All of this exacerbates an ongoing public health crisis. For some veterans, VA was the only place they were able to obtain abortion care in these states."
"Restrictions on abortion coverage—the effects of which fall hardest on people who already face unequal access to healthcare, including Black women, people of color, and people with low incomes—hinder a person's reproductive well-bring and deepen inequities," the doctor added. "Power to Decide condemns this policy and urges Congress to pass legislation to ensure all veterans have access to the abortion care they need when and where they need it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm as Texas Files State's First Criminal Abortion Charges Against Midwife
"Republicans are strategically targeting people they think the public won't rally behind," said rights advocate Jessica Valenti. "Let's make sure to prove them wrong."
Mar 18, 2025
A midwife in the Houston area on Monday became the first person to be criminally charged under Texas' abortion ban, with Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton accusing Maria Margarita Rojas of providing illegal abortion care and practicing medicine without a license.
If convicted, Rojas faces up to 20 years in prison under the state's near-total ban on abortion.
Writer and abortion rights advocate Jessica Valenti said Rojas is likely being "targeted" by Paxton, noting that the midwife provides "healthcare to a primarily Spanish-speaking, low-income community."
"Paxton, a political operator who picks cases strategically, likely chose Rojas because he believes Americans won't find her sympathetic—whether due to racism, classism, or the stories his office plans to spin," wrote Valenti. "In other words: Republicans are strategically targeting people they think the public won't rally behind. Let's make sure to prove them wrong."
Rojas owns and operates Clínicas Latinoamericanas, which includes four health clinics in the Houston suburbs of Spring, Waller, and Cypress. She has reportedly been a certified midwife in Texas since 2018 and was an obstetrician in Peru before immigrating to the United States.
According to The Washington Post, Rojas was first arrested on March 6 on charges of practicing medicine without a license, and was held on $10,000 bond. The new charges were added Monday, and Rojas and another employee of the clinic, Jose Ley, were being held in a jail in Waller County, with their bond set at a combined $1.4 million.
The New York Times noted that Waller County, where the charges were brought, is more conservative than Harris County, the largest county in Texas and the one where a majority of Rojas' clinics are located.
Court documents show that Paxton's office has accused Rojas of having "attempted an abortion on" a woman identified as E.G. in March.
"Paxton and Texas Republicans will be working overtime to paint Rojas as a villain, regardless of the truth. They know that abortion bans are incredibly unpopular, as is arresting healthcare providers."
Rojas was "known by law enforcement to have performed an abortion" on another occasion earlier this year, according to the attorney general, who has filed for a temporary restraining order against Clínicas Latinoamericanas "to prevent further illegal activity."
When she was first arrested, Rojas was "pulled over by the police at gunpoint and handcuffed" while she was on her way to the clinic and was taken to Austin and held overnight before being released, her friend and fellow midwife Holly Shearman told the Post.
Shearman said she did not believe Rojas is guilty of the charges against her.
Valenti emphasized that most details of Rojas' case at this point are being shared by Paxton's office, and warned that the vehemently anti-abortion attorney general will likely attempt to portray the midwife in a negative light to garner support—considering that a majority of Americans don't support criminal charges for health professionals who provide abortion care.
A survey last March by the KFF found that 8 in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of Independents, and about 50% of Republicans did not believe doctors who provide abortion care should face fines or prison time.
"You cannot trust any information coming from Paxton's office or Texas law enforcement," said Valenti. "Paxton and Texas Republicans will be working overtime to paint Rojas as a villain, regardless of the truth. They know that abortion bans are incredibly unpopular, as is arresting healthcare providers. They're not just fighting a legal battle here, but a PR one."
Valenti noted that when Paxton filed a civil lawsuit against Dr. Maggie Carpenter, a physician in New York who he accused of prescribing and sending pills for a medication abortion to a patient in Texas, he claimed the Texas resident "suffered 'serious complications' despite providing no evidence." Carpenter was fined more than $100,000 last month.
"There's every reason to believe Paxton's team will pull similar tactics here, coming out with all sorts of claims about this midwife and her practice," wrote Valenti.
Marc Hearron, interim associate director of ligation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Post that "Texas officials have been trying every which way to terrify healthcare practitioners from providing care and to trap Texans."
Hearron told The Cut that "doctors all across the state are saying that they are afraid that their judgment is going to be second-guessed, and all of these actions show that Paxton is chomping at the bit to go after anybody who provides an abortion."
"It's just a litany of situations where it shows the state of Texas does not care about women's lives," said Hearron. "What it cares about is stopping women from getting the care that they need, no matter what."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Brain Drain': Study Shows Workers Fleeing States With Abortion Bans
"Workers are not willing to trade their health and autonomy for a paycheck," said one advocate.
Mar 03, 2025
Republican lawmakers across the United States are determined to force people who become pregnant to carry their pregnancies to term by passing abortion bans and "fetal personhood" laws, but a new report shows that in many states, they are choosing choosing restrictions on reproductive rights over their states' workforce.
" Workers are not willing to trade their health and autonomy for a paycheck," said Dr. Jamila K. Taylor, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) as the group released a report Monday on "brain drain" in states with abortion bans.
The group analyzed a survey of 10,000 adults by Morning Consult and found that 1 in 5 respondents who are planning to have children in the next decade has moved to a new state due to abortion restrictions, or knows someone who has.
Among people with advanced degrees, 14% have moved out-of-state because of anti-abortion laws or know someone who has.
Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which advised on the study, said the report showed that "reproductive healthcare is a personal issue and workplace imperative."
"For business leaders and policymakers, protecting reproductive rights isn't just the right thing to do—it's essential for talent and long-term economic stability," said Northrup.
The two groups said the study showed employees' demands for policymakers and workplaces in states that are hostile to abortion rights.
"Access to reproductive healthcare is a fundamental component of workplace equity, and businesses can no longer afford to ignore the impact of abortion restrictions on their workforce."
Fifty-seven percent of workers who plan to have children prioritize employers who offer reproductive healthcare benefits and 56% person think companies should actively engage with lawmakers to protect abortion rights.
In states with restrictive abortion laws, people broadly support family-friendly workplace policies, according to the report, including 83% of Mississippi residents who back paid sick leave; 56% of people in West Virginia who think employers should offer paid time off for fertility treatments; and 70% of people in Alabama who support paid leave for pregnancy-related healthcare.
"Access to reproductive healthcare is a fundamental component of workplace equity, and businesses can no longer afford to ignore the impact of abortion restrictions on their workforce," said Taylor. "Our report makes it clear that companies who fail to address these needs risk losing their competitive edge. To build a resilient workforce and thriving economy, it's up to corporate leaders and lawmakers to take decisive action and make reproductive health care a top priority."
Workers expect their employers to not only provide reproductive healthcare and family-friendly benefits, but also to "stand up for these rights at a policy level," the report reads.
"Companies can play a critical role in helping to shape more accessible state policies and creating an environment that respects and safeguards access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare," it continues.
The report suggests that with workers thinking of moving to new states to get away from anti-abortion laws, employers will likely be incentivized to help ensure their states safeguard "access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare."
"Most employees are deeply concerned about their ability to access healthcare services while building their families, and they expect their employers to take an active role in protecting them," reads the report. "Accepting that reality and then making decisions from there will enable companies to attract and retain talent and, by advocating to improve the reproductive landscape across the U.S., drive economic progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Warn of 'Devastating Damage' From Trump Reinstating Global Gag Rule
"People worldwide will have fewer points of service," said Doctors Without Borders. "It means fewer safe places to talk about their health options, and fewer providers to go to for help during medical emergencies."
Jan 27, 2025
Reproductive rights and medical experts on Monday continued to warn that U.S. President Donald Trump's highly anticipated reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, which bans nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion from receiving federal funding, will cause "devastating damage" for people around the world.
The global gag rule (GGR), as it is called by critics, has been imposed by every Republican president for decades, including Trump during his first term. After returning to office a week ago, Trump on Friday signed an executive order "to end the use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion" and revived the controversial rule with a presidential memorandum.
"As the single largest funder of international aid, the U.S. plays a powerful role in shaping the global health landscape—and women's and girls' lives are being used as pawns in this political game," Dr. Carole Sekimpi wrote Monday for the British journal The BMJ. "My work overseeing reproductive health programs in Africa for MSI Reproductive Choices gives me an understanding of the profound consequences that this will have on communities that Trump will never set foot in."
"It's prudent to first understand that the U.S. government never funds abortions," Sekimpi stressed, noting the rule punishes groups that participate in anything abortion-related with separate funding. "Last time Trump was in power, MSI was among those that refused to accept the terms of this policy. The U.S. funding we lost would have allowed us to serve 8 million women, preventing 6 million unintended pregnancies, 1.8 million unsafe abortions, and 20,000 maternal deaths. And that was just one organization."
Ibis Reproductive Health president Kelly Blanchard and Evelyne Opondo, an Ibis board member and the International Center for Research on Women's Africa director, also emphasized in a Monday Medium post that the rule's impact "is felt keenly by organizations that provide comprehensive sexual and reproductive healthcare—including contraception and abortion care—around the world," such as MSI and International Planned Parenthood Federation, "who refuse to abide by the terms because they support the human rights of all people and will not withhold information or critical reproductive healthcare from individuals who need it."
"The GGR flies in the face of both human rights and evidence-based public health," the pair asserted. "The GGR does not prevent abortion from happening but rather increases barriers to abortion access, reduces access to contraception increasing risk of unintended pregnancy, and could actually increase unsafe abortion, a key driver of maternal deaths around the world."
Melanie Nezer, vice president for advocacy and external relations at the Women's Refugee Commission, similarly declared in a Monday statement denouncing the GGR, "Let us be clear: this policy will not protect lives—it will endanger them."
"The goal of the global gag rule is to curtail access to safe sexual and reproductive healthcare, including access to safe abortion," she said. "The result is more suffering from the consequences of conflict-related sexual violence, more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more maternal death that would otherwise be entirely preventable."
Reproductive rights groups worldwide were similarly critical of the decision on Friday and throughout the weekend, with Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson calling it "dangerous" and arguing that "elected officials should not be interfering in personal medical decisions, in this country or anywhere in the world."
Like the critics on Monday, Rachana Desai Martin, chief government and external relations officer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, pointed to the fallout from GGR during the Republican's first term and said that "the reinstatement and expansion of President Trump's global gag rule is a direct assault on the health and human rights of millions of people around the world."
Also recalling the first Trump administration, Guttmacher Institute acting co-CEO Destiny Lopez highlighted how her group's "research has documented its severe ripple effects, including stalling and even reversing progress in expanding access to modern contraception in countries like Ethiopia and Uganda."
"Now history will sadly and shamefully repeat itself, and people in many countries will find it harder to access safe abortion, contraception, and other critical health services," she said, vowing to track the impacts and work to repeal the harmful policy.
Reproductive Freedom for All president and CEO Mini Timmaraju also pledged to battle the GGR and other Republican attacks on choice, saying that "these policies inflict harm on those who need access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion, in our country, and around the world—and we will fight back."
Previewing the fight ahead, National Abortion Federation president and CEO Brittany Fonteno warned that the GGR "will not be the last" attack on reproductive healthcare, adding that "for nearly a decade now, Donald Trump has shown us just how dangerous he is for abortion access, and it is clear that over the next four years, the anti-abortion movement will take every opportunity to strip away our fundamental right to reproductive freedom—both here and abroad."
RealClearPolitics, the first to report the rule's revival, noted that "the president timed the release of his executive actions to coincide with the annual March for Life on Friday when some of his most ardent supporters rallied on the National Mall. Vice President JD Vance addressed the march in person, while Trump recorded a video message Thursday to be played at the Friday rally."
Although Trump said on the campaign trail that he thinks abortion policies should be decided at the state level, rights advocates have cited his extensive record of dishonesty and bragging about the role he played in overturning Roe v. Wade, and expressed fear that the Republican-controlled Congress will send a national abortion ban to his desk.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Strikes Down Georgia's Six-Week Abortion Ban in 'Absolutely Epic Ruling'
"Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy," Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney wrote in his decision.
Sep 30, 2024
Reproductive rights defenders cheered Monday's ruling by a Georgia judge striking down the state's six-week abortion ban as a violation of "a woman's right to control what happens to and within her body," a decision that means the medical procedure will be legal up to approximately 22 weeks of pregnancy.
Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney excoriated the LIFE Act, which was signed into law in 2019 by Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and prohibits abortion care after fetal cardiac activity can be detected. The so-called "fetal heartbeat" law—a medically misleading term—is applicable before many people even know they're pregnant.
Other states including Kentucky, Mississippi, and Ohio passed similar "heartbeat" laws in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, which occurred in 2022 when the tribunal's right-wing supermajority issued its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.
"Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote," McBurney wrote in his ruling. "Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have."
"It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid's Tale to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb any more so than society could—or should—force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another," the judge said.
"It is generally men who promote and defend laws like the LIFE Act, the effect of which is to require only women—and, given the socio-economic and demographic evidence presented at trial, primarily poor women, which means in Georgia primarily Black and brown women—to engage in compulsory labor, i.e., the carrying of a pregnancy to term at the government's behest," McBurney added.
As Jessica Valenti noted on her Abortion, Every Day Substack, "the ruling comes just weeks after ProPublica's investigation into the deaths of two women killed by Georgia's abortion ban, Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller.
As NBC News reported Monday:
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective and other plaintiffs in 2019 soon after Kemp signed it into law. As it faced the legal challenge, in 2022, McBurney ruled that year that the law violated the U.S. Constitution in 2022 and struck it down. The Georgia Supreme Court, however, soon took up the case and allowed it to remain in effect. The case was sent back to McBurney, who found the law in violation of the state's constitution.
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective executive director Monica Simpson said in a statement that Monday's ruling is "a significant step in the right direction towards achieving reproductive justice in Georgia."
"We are encouraged that a Georgia court has ruled for bodily autonomy," Simpson continued. "At the same time, we can't forget that every day the ban has been in place has been a day too long—and we have felt the dire consequences with the devastating and preventable deaths of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller."
"For years, Black women have sounded the alarm that abortion bans are deadly," she noted. "While true justice would mean Amber and Candi were still with us today, we will continue to demand accountability to ensure that their lives—and the lives of others who we have yet to learn of—were not lost in vain."
"We know that the fight continues as anti-abortion white supremacists will stop at nothing to control our bodies and attack our liberation," Simpson added. "We are ready for them and will never back down until we achieve reproductive justice: the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, the human right to have children, or not, and raise them in safe and sustainable communities."
Alice Wang, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that McBurney "has rightfully struck down Georgia's six-week abortion ban as a flagrant violation of Georgia's longstanding and robust right to privacy, restoring access to abortion at a time when too many have been prevented from accessing this critical health care and from deciding what is best for their bodies, health, and family lives."
"For too long, the ban has caused a public health crisis, as evidenced by the testimony plaintiffs presented at trial and devastating stories recently reported about the preventable deaths of Candi Miller and Amber Nicole Thurman," she continued. "Today's ruling is a step toward ensuring that people can access and clinicians can provide critical healthcare without fear of criminalization or stigma."
"This victory demonstrates that when courts faithfully apply constitutional protections for bodily autonomy, laws that restrict access to abortion and force people to continue pregnancies against their will cannot stand," Wang added.
Since the Dobbs ruling, 13 states have passed abortion bans with limited exceptions and 28 states have prohibited the procedure based on gestational duration, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
However, there has been tremendous nationwide pushback against abortion bans, with voters opting to uphold reproductive rights every time the issue appears on state ballots—including in conservative Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, and Ohio.
As many as 10 states could have abortion rights measures on the ballot in this November's election, which at the top of the ticket pits reproductive freedom champion and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris against former Republican President Donald Trump, who has boasted about appointing three right-wing Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe and who critics fear would sign a national abortion ban if one were passed by Congress.
Trump also said he would allow states to monitor people's pregnancies and prosecute anyone who violates an abortion ban.
Kemp's office slammed McBurney's ruling.
"Once again, the will of Georgians and their representatives have been overruled by the personal beliefs of one judge," Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement. "Protecting the lives of the most vulnerable among us is one of our most sacred responsibilities, and Georgia will continue to be a place where we fight for the lives of the unborn."
Republican Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr is expected to appeal to the state Supreme Court to block Monday's ruling.
"We are prepared to continue fighting this case regardless," the Center for Reproductive Rights vowed on social media, "and we will NOT back down from this fight."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Win for Reproductive Freedom,' North Dakota Judge Strikes Down Abortion Ban
"I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will," said one advocate.
Sep 12, 2024
Two days after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed that "every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative" wanted the federal right to abortion care to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, a North Dakota judge became the latest on Thursday to strike down a state-level abortion ban, saying it violated residents' constitutional rights.
"The North Dakota Constitution guarantees each individual, including women, the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting his or her bodily integrity, health, and autonomy, in consultation with a chosen healthcare provider free from government interference," wrote Judge Bruce Romanick, a District Court judge. "This section necessarily and more specifically protects a woman's right to procreative autonomy—including to seek and obtain a previability abortion."
The near-total ban on abortion care will be officially blocked in the coming days, in a move that the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) said could ultimately help restore access for people across the Midwest, as abortion care is currently banned in South Dakota and heavily restricted in nearby states including Nebraska and Iowa.
Meetra Mehdizadeh, a staff attorney at CRR, which filed a lawsuit against North Dakota's ban in 2023, said the ruling "is a win for reproductive freedom, and means it is now much safer to be pregnant in North Dakota," but warned that Republican lawmakers who passed the law have already done damage to pregnant people in the state that will take time to reverse.
"The damage that North Dakota's extreme abortion bans have done cannot be repaired overnight," said Mehdizadeh. "There are no abortion clinics left in North Dakota. That means most people seeking an abortion still won't be able to get one, even though it is legal. Clinics are medical facilities that need to acquire doctors, staff, equipment—they can take years to open, like most healthcare centers. The destructive impacts of abortion bans are felt long after they are struck down."
CRR argued in the case that the ban was too vague for medical providers to determine when an exception would be allowed for a pregnant patient whose life or health was at risk.
"This left physicians who provided abortions with the threat of having to defend their decision in court if someone were to question the provider's judgment," said the group. "Violating the ban was considered a class C felony, punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both."
Among the plaintiffs represented by CRR was Red River Women's Clinic, which was North Dakota's sole abortion care provider until a prior ban forced it to relocate from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota, where abortion has remained legal following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade.
"Today's decision gives me hope. I feel like the court heard us when we raised our voices against a law that not only ran counter to our state constitution, but was too vague for physicians to interpret and which prevented them from providing the high quality care that our communities are entitled to," said Tammi Kromenaker, director of the clinic. "Abortion is lifesaving healthcare; it should not be a crime. I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will."
Since Roe was overturned in 2022, numerous women have shared stories of being denied abortion care after suffering complications—including some that were life-threatening.
Judges in states including Wyoming, Utah, and Montana have blocked abortion bans in recent years, and voters have rejected anti-abortion ballot measures and approved ones that support the right to abortion in states including Kentucky, Kansas, Ohio, and Michigan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Trump Did This': 100+ Pregnant Women Neglected, Denied ER Care Since 2022
"I ended up losing half of my fertility and if I was made to wait any longer, it's very likely I would have died," said one Texas patient.
Aug 12, 2024
Monday reporting from The Associated Press and newly filed federal complaints highlight how abortion restrictions enacted in U.S. states since the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade endanger the health and lives of pregnant people nationwide.
Building on a report published earlier this year ahead of oral arguments in a relevant U.S. Supreme Court case, the AP's Amanda Seitz revealed that "more than 100 pregnant women in medical distress who sought help from emergency rooms were turned away or negligently treated since 2022," according to an analysis of federal hospital investigations.
Legal experts and medical providers argue that "nursing and doctor shortages that have plagued hospitals since the onset of Covid-19, trouble staffing ultrasounds around-the-clock, and new abortion laws are making the emergency room a dangerous place for pregnant women," Seitz reported. Even when laws make exceptions intended for cases of rape, incest, and emergencies, some doctors and facilities decline to provide care out of fear of state restrictions.
As the AP detailed:
A pregnant patient at a Bakersfield, California, emergency room was quickly triaged, but staff failed to realize the urgency of her condition, a uterine rupture. The delay, an investigator concluded, may have contributed to the baby’s death.
Doctors at emergency rooms in California, Nebraska, Arkansas, and South Carolina failed to check for fetal heartbeats or discharged patients who were in active labor, leaving them to deliver at home or in ambulances, according to the documents.
Seitz also shared stories from Florida, Idaho, Texas, and Washington. Two women from Texas—Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz and Kyleigh Thurman—had the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) file complaints on their behalf with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last week. They both had ectopic pregnancies and lost a fallopian tube.
"Despite the fact that my life was clearly in danger, the hospital told me that they could not help me. I ended up losing half of my fertility and if I was made to wait any longer, it's very likely I would have died," Norris-De La Cruz said Monday in a CRR statement.
"The doctors knew I needed an abortion, but these bans are making it nearly impossible to get basic emergency healthcare," she continued. "So, I'm filing this complaint because women like me deserve justice and accountability from those that hurt us. Texas state officials can't keep ignoring us. We can't let them."
Thurman said that "I never imagined I would find myself in the crosshairs of my home state's extreme abortion bans. For weeks, I was in and out of emergency rooms trying to get the abortion that I needed to save my future fertility and life. This should have been an open-and-shut case. Yet, I was left completely in the dark without any information or options for the care I deserved."
"Pregnancy is not straightforward, and I now have to live with the consequences of these extreme laws every day," she added. "None of this should have happened to me, and I want to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else."
Beth Brinkmann, CRR's senior director of U.S. litigation, asked: "How many more people will nearly die before we see change? These women are proof that exceptions do not make abortion bans less dangerous, even when they are exceedingly clear."
"Texas law clearly allows for abortions to treat ectopic pregnancies, and federal law requires it," Brinkmann explained. "Yet, Kelsie and Kyleigh were denied absolutely urgent care. As long as these bans are in place, doctors will be terrified to provide abortions of any kind."
"It's impossible to have the best interest of your patient in mind when you're staring down a life sentence," she asserted. "Texas officials have put doctors in an impossible situation. It is clear that these exceptions are a farce, and that these laws are putting countless lives in jeopardy."
The relevant Supreme Court case focuses on Idaho's strict abortion ban and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law requiring emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide patients with "necessary stabilizing treatment," which the Biden administration argues includes abortion care.
Two years after reversing Roe with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, the high court in June dismissed the Idaho case without ruling on its merits and sent it back to the lower courts. The decision temporarily restored emergency abortions in Idaho but, as CRR said at the time, "still leaves millions of people in states with abortion bans vulnerable."
In response to the "horrifying" AP reporting and CRR complaints, reproductive rights advocates, including some doctors, called out the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority—led by Chief Justice John Roberts—and politicians who installed them and are trying to outlaw abortion care.
"In addition to these individual incidents is the horrifying recognition that they are not one-off consequences of some short-term disaster. They represent a reality created by the Supreme Court that will take a generation at minimum to undo. This is now our status quo," said Gillian Branstetter, a communications strategist at the ACLU, on her personal social media.
Denver Post opinion editor Megan Schrader declared that "pregnant women are suffering because of the twisted and corrupted jurisprudence of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas."
Dr. Michelle Au, an anesthesiologist and Democratic member of the Georgia House of Representatives for the 50th District, stressed that "standards of care haven't changed. EMTALA hasn't changed. What has changed are state laws inhibiting doctors from caring for patients."
Au took aim at former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for the November election, declaring that "Trump did this."
American Bridge 21st Century, a super political action committee and research group that supports Democrats, similarly said Monday that "Trump overturned Roe and American women are paying the price."
Although Trump has recently tried to downplay the significance of abortion rights in this cycle and distance himself from some restrictions, recognizing them as politically risky, he has previously backed anti-abortion laws and bragged about appointing half of the justices who overturned Roe. Rights advocates fear what his return to office would mean for reproductive freedom.
Trump and his vice presidential candidate, anti-choice U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), are set to face Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, on November 5.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Kansas Supreme Court Affirms Abortion Rights, Strikes Down Restrictions
"This is an immense victory for the health, safety, and dignity of people in Kansas and the entire Midwestern region, where millions have been cut off from abortion access," said one advocate.
Jul 05, 2024
Reproductive rights defenders on Friday cheered a pair of Kansas Supreme Court decisions reaffirming the right to abortion and striking down various restrictions—rulings expected to impact people beyond the Midwestern state, given how many patients must now travel for care.
"The state devoted much of its brief to inviting us to reverse our earlier ruling in this case that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion. We decline the invitation," Justice Eric Rosen wrote in the decision against Senate Bill 95, which outlawed a common abortion procedure for second-trimester pregnancies called dilation and evacuation (D&E).
Rosen was referring to the court's 2019 ruling that "Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection of the right of personal autonomy," which "allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy."
The justice wrote Friday that "S.B. 95 does not further patient safety, it compromises patient safety," noting that "as the district court found and the state did not contest, S.B. 95 eliminates a safe and common medical procedure and leaves patients subject to procedures that are rarely used, are untested, and are sometimes more dangerous or impossible."
The court's other new ruling was about what critics call targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP) policies. Both decisions were 5-1—with Justice Stegall Caleb dissenting and Justice K.J. Wall not participating—and followed Kansas voters rejecting a proposed anti-choice amendment to the state constitution in August 2022.
"Now the Kansas Supreme Court has decisively reaffirmed that the state constitution protects abortion as a fundamental right."
"Kansas voters made it loud and clear in 2022: The right to abortion must be protected. Now the Kansas Supreme Court has decisively reaffirmed that the state constitution protects abortion as a fundamental right," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which was involved with both cases.
"This is an immense victory for the health, safety, and dignity of people in Kansas and the entire Midwestern region, where millions have been cut off from abortion access," Northup added. "We will continue our fight to ensure Kansans can access the essential healthcare they need in their home state."
The anti-choice ballot measure's failure two years ago came shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority reversed Roe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization—which bolstered GOP efforts to further restrict reproductive rights at the state level, forcing patients to more frequently travel for abortion care.
Kansas allows abortion care up until 22 weeks of pregnancy and has seen an influx of healthcare refugees from states that have imposed bans. The Guttmacher Institute said last month that "in Kansas, clinic numbers increased by 50% (from four to six) between 2020 and 2023, and the number of abortions rose by 152% (an increase of 12,440)."
Despite the fresh wins in court, the broader battle for reproductive freedom continues in Kansas. As KMUW reported Friday:
Several new abortion laws took effect in Kansas earlier this week, but one of them—a law requiring doctors to ask patients getting abortions their reason for doing so—is being challenged in court. A Johnson County judge said Monday that doctors could add the law to a larger lawsuit they brought against a handful of older state abortion restrictions, including a 24-hour waiting period. The judge agreed to temporarily block the older laws while the case proceeds.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment told providers it will "not, for now" enforce the abortion reasons law, providers said Monday. The health department has not responded to requests seeking to confirm that.
The Center for Reproductive Rights noted Friday that it "is currently representing abortion providers in another ongoing challenge to several onerous restrictions including a law forcing providers to falsely tell their patients that a medication abortion can be 'reversed,' an unproven claim not based on medicine or science."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
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