Erosion of Reproductive Rights in States Gains Speed

By Erickson, Jan | National NOW Times, Spring 2004 | Go to article overview

Erosion of Reproductive Rights in States Gains Speed


Erickson, Jan, National NOW Times


Since the beginning of 2004, women in Texas have effectively been unable to obtain an abortion past the 16th week of pregnancy. The state legislature has implemented a new requirement that abortions beyond the 16th week must be performed in hospitals or ambulatory surgery centers, not a doctor's office or freestanding clinic. But many of the hospitals in Texas are Catholic-owned and according to Texas Planned Parenthood, not a single ambulatory surgery center performs abortions. For freestanding women's health clinics or doctor's offices to meet all the new (and unnecessary) architectural and equipment upgrades specified by the legislature, the costs would be prohibitive.

Among other restrictions, Texas abortion providers must hand out a pamphlet entitled A Woman's Right to Know, which contains unscientific and inaccurate information about the (false) link between abortion and breast cancer. The brochure suggests that a woman getting an abortion will be psychologically damaged and notes the death rate associated with abortion, but not the much higher death rate associated with childbirth. A new Texas law also increases the intimidation by requiring that abortion providers photocopy the patient's driver's license or other personal identification and keep it on file!

In Utah, a recent statute denies state funding to any hospital or clinic that performs an abortion except in cases of rape, incest or "permanent, irreparable and grave damage" to the woman. As a result, Salt Lake City's University Hospital will no longer terminate pregnancies involving fetuses with fatal deformities.

South Dakota Narrowly Defeats Ban

In South Dakota, the legislature passed an abortion ban that does not even have an exception for rape or incest - and it would be law right now if not for a technicality (see more details below). Proponents expect to pass the bill next year, and were unabashed in their determination that this law will go to the Supreme Court in another attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade - perhaps to a Court where a single resignation has changed the balance against women's rights.

These are just a sample of many reports from the states about the determination to reduce access to abortion services. More than three decades after Roe, we face adeeply threatening political environment.

A virtual tidal wave of anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation is sweeping across the 50 states, resulting in 380 new state laws since 1995 that limit or deny access to reproductive health services. And many more restrictive bills are being considered now that most state houses and senates are controlled by anti-reproductive rights majorities.

This movement is the result of a deliberate, well-coordinated and well-financed effort by extremist religious and political organizations. These groups are spending tens of millions of dollars to research and draft restrictive bills, pay public relations firms to influence opinion and lobby legislators, and contribute to candidates who oppose women's right to abortion and contraception. Distributing "model" legislation to states, training legislators and activists, and plotting legal strategies are all part of this disciplined and focused operation.

State Legislatures Push Hundreds of Bad Bills

Although many bills that limit women's reproductive health options move through Congress each year, much of the dramatic erosion is taking place at the state level.

In 2003 alone, 558 anti-abortion/anti-contraception measures-a 35 percent increase from the previous year-were considered by the states and 45 of them were adopted. Most dealt with restrictions on minors' access to reproductive health care, biased counseling and mandatory delays, measures granting legal personhood status to embryos and fetuses, initiatives allowing individuals and institutions to refuse to provide abortion and family planning services, and restrictive regulations targeted at abortion providers.

By the same token, of the 261 bills introduced to advance women's reproductive rights, only 22 were enacted. Most regrettably, when reproductive rights advocates have to fight hundreds of pieces of hostile legislation, we have fewer resources to advance better health care for women and their families, and young women, women of color, poor women and those living in rural areas suffer the most.

Women Face Clinic Violence and Barriers to Access

Only 13 percent of all counties, and just three percent of non-metropolitan counties, have an identifiable abortion provider. As older doctors who were sensitized to the tragic consequences of illegal abortion retire, fewer physicians are choosing to provide abortions. Fewer medical schools and teaching hospitals are offering training in the procedure to future OB/GYNs; as recently as 1998, less than half of OB/GYN residency programs made first trimester abortion techniques a routine part of training.

In addition to the lack of trained physicians and facilities, continuing harassment and violence deters women from obtaining reproductive health services. The level of violence has declined in some areas, partly because of the nationwide injunction we obtained in NOW v. Scheidler, and because of the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act that prohibits "force, threat, or physical obstruction" in preventing patient access to a clinic. But opponents routinely harass and demean women seeking services, and trespass at and vandalize clinics.

The number of violent incidents at abortion clinics in the U.S. and Canada has gone from a total of 637 during the 10 year period of 1977-1987 to an annual high of 452 in 1993, then declining to 143 in 2003. The total number of violent incidents reported from 1977 to 2003 is 4,203, with a total of 696 clinic blockades. Bear in mind that these figures are likely understated, as not all incidents are reported.

These statistics include seven murders of clinic personnel and escorts, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 169 cases of arson, 1,081 acts of vandalism and numerous other incidents, such as anthrax threats, acid attacks, kidnapping and burglary. Extremists have limited their violent activities thanks to federal civil and criminal penalties-the number of arrests has gone from a high of 12,358 in 1989 to none in 2003. But the overall total of violent and disruptive incidents over the 1977 to 2003 period is 88,531, in addition to nearly 700 blockades.

Catholic Hospital Mergers Deny Care

The stealthy spread of the mergers of Catholic hospitals with community and private hospitals has largely escaped notice. From 1990 to 1998, there were at least 127 mergers between non-Catholic and Catholic hospitals. The impact on reproductive health care services in many of those hospitals has been damaging, with denial of emergency contraception to rape and incest victims, elimination of abortion and sterilization services, and a preference to saving the life of a fetus over that of the woman in crisis pregnancies, among others. A guide, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care, developed by the U. S. Conference of Bishops, spells out the kind of services that can be provided or denied, and the merged hospitals are required to follow them.

Federal legislation has been introduced to require any hospital receiving federal funds-and most hospitals do-to provide necessary medical services, but the current Congress is not likely to pass it. For rural areas and small towns where the community or private hospital was the only facility where women could find reproductive health care, the Catholic hospital mergers have meant there is no facility to serve their needs.

States Succumb to Anti-Abortion/Anti-Contraception Wave

Some states have had their worst year for anti-reproductive rights legislation. For instance, in South Dakota, legislation was proposed in an attempt to ban nearly all abortions with the assertion that life begins at conception and therefore "abortion constitutes murder of a guiltless life." A provision protecting a woman's life, but not her health, was included. State Rep. Matt McCaulley (R), a spokesman for the bill, is on record as stating that the "health of the mother is not substantial enough justification for taking life." The language could also be interpreted to prohibit contraception.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds sent the bill back to the state legislature requesting technical changes to ensure that existing state restrictions would remain in effect while the legislation was challenged in court. In a 17-18 vote on March 15, the South Dakota Senate declined to approve these changes, which means the ban is defeated for the year. The deciding vote was reportedly cast by an anti-abortion legislator who felt the ban didn't go far enough.

An abortion ban may be enacted soon in Michigan, where a petition effort is attempting to defeat Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm's veto. Reportedly, anti-abortion forces in Minnesota, Iowa and other states will attempt outright ban bills in 2004 as well.

State Assaults in 2003

* Legislators in eight states considered 13 . measures that would ban all or most abortions (Ga., Mich., Miss., N.D., Okla., R.I., Wash., W. Va.). None were enacted, although Michigan passed the Legal-Birth Definition Act which, as noted, was vetoed.

* Thirteen states (Ark., Conn., Hawaii, Mass., Mich., Minn., N.H., N.Y., Ore., Utah, Vt., Va., Wash.) considered 25 bills banning abortion procedures (so-called partial-birth abortion bans, which actually ban a wide range of procedures). Only Virginia enacted a ban, but a court injunction was issued in January 2004, so it has not yet taken effect.

* Twenty-one states considered 44 bills criminalizing harm to an embryo or fetus independent of the pregnant woman. Texas passed such a bill, similar to the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (see Legislative Update for more on the federal bill).

* Five states (Conn., Idaho, N.D., Va., W.Va.) considered six bills to provide state health insurance for fetuses, rather than pregnant women, under the State Child Health Program (SCHIP). None adopted those bills, but Colorado suspended coverage for pregnant women receiving care under SCHIP.

* Eighteen states considered 40 measures that would further restrict young women's access to abortion services by requiring parental notice or consent. Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia enacted or modified new and existing restrictions.

Help NOW fight back against the well-funded effort to deny women reproductive freedom. Join your local chapter or make a contribution to our work by visitng www.now.org or calling 202-628-8669.

Resources: NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Abortion Federation, Catholics for a Free Choice

[Sidebar]

TOO BUSY TO SEARCH FOR FEMINIST NEWS EVERY DAY?

Subscribe to NOWs News and Action Summary and other email lists at www.now.org/lists.

[Author Affiliation]

by Jan Erickson, Government Relations Director

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Erosion of Reproductive Rights in States Gains Speed
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.