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
mifepristone
Outrage as GOP AGs Argue Fewer Pregnant Teens Deprive States of Population Increases
"This is what potentially winning right-wing legal cases read like these days," said one progressive activist. "Dark stuff."
Oct 22, 2024
Opinion polls have repeatedly made clear that U.S. voters are turned off by the Republican Party's fixation on banning abortion care and controlling Americans' reproductive choices—but that didn't stop three GOP officials from writing in a court filing this month that they want to restrict abortion pill access because it would reduce teen pregnancy rates in their state.
"In my expert legal opinion, this is deeply gross and weird," wrote attorney and writer Madiba K. Dennie on Monday at Balls & Strikes, a news outlet focused on the judiciary.
Dennie was referring to a legal filing by Republican Attorneys General Andrew Bailey of Missouri, Kris Kobach of Kansas, and Raúl Labrador of Idaho in a case regarding mifepristone, one of two pills commonly used in medication abortions—which account for more than half of abortions in the United States.
As S.P. Rogers wrote at the newsletter Repro-Truth, attorneys general filed an amended complaint earlier this month in an effort to revive Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a case in which the plaintiffs argued in favor of severely restricting mifepristone access nationwide.
The three states had joined the case earlier this year, before the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case based on the plaintiffs' lack of standing.
Because the high court didn't outright dismiss the case, the three attorneys general were able to file a complaint on October 11 seeking to prohibit mifepristone use for anyone under the age of 18 and overturn eased restrictions for the drug.
Bailey, Kobach, and Labrador argued that mifepristone access would could cause "injuries" to their states because it is "depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers."
"A loss of potential population causes further injuries as well: The [states'] subsequent 'diminishment of political representation' and 'loss of federal funds,' such as potentially 'losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are' reduced or their increase diminished," reads the court filing.
In other words, wrote Rogers, in the view of the Republican state officials, "teenage girls, which the states refer to as 'teenaged mothers,' exist for the purposes of churning out new citizens for the states."
"Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri are claiming to have a legitimate, sovereign state interest in forced birth—in teenage girls and women as breeders. It's an argument that positions everyone capable of birthing as brood mares—a scenario in which the state does not exist for the people, but the people for the state—and augurs a future claim for the prohibition of contraception," added Rogers.
Republicans including GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump have signaled their desire to roll back the right to contraception.
At Balls & Strikes, Dennie wrote that the GOP officials made clear that they believe "uteri are state slush funds, and girls owe the state reproduction once they are capable of it."
"A personal dislike of somebody else taking medicine is not a legitimate grievance," wrote Dennie. "So the states are trying to show that they are entitled to the population growth and accompanying funds that pregnant minors would produce, and the FDA is getting in the way of that."
While the argument is "shocking in its brazenness," added Dennie, it shouldn't come as a surprise in a country where the Republican Party has shown no sign of backing down from its goal of banning abortion, even as news reports mount about children who have been forced to give birth and pregnant patients who have died or become gravely ill because healthcare providers have refused to treat them for fear of prosecution.
The legal complaint, said Dennie, "is a natural outgrowth of the conservative legal movement's efforts to subordinate women."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Calls Abortion 'Much Less of an Issue' and Won't Say How He'll Vote in Florida
"Trump promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and he followed through with that promise," said the ACLU of Florida. "Reproductive freedom is on the ballot in Florida this November."
Aug 08, 2024
Republican former U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday tried to downplay the significance of reproductive freedom in this year's contest and refused to say how he plans to vote on a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution that would outlaw pre-viability abortion bans.
The Republican presidential nominee gave a wide-ranging press conference from Mar-a-Lago, his residence in Palm Beach—an event featuring an "enormous number of lies and misrepresentations," as one critic put it, and which the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, described as a "public meltdown."
During the press conference, Trump said, "I think the abortion issue has been very much tempered down," adding that "it seems to be much less of an issue, especially for those where they have the exceptions."
As Common Dreams has reported, patients have been denied abortion care even when they should be covered by exceptions—generally for cases of rape, incest, or to protect the health or life of the pregnant person.
In response to Trump attempting to downplay the impact of abortion on the election, Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali said, "Ooof, this is a gift for Democrats."
Harris' campaign quickly shared on social media several videos of Trump's remarks from the press conference, including what he said about abortion.
Florida has banned abortions after six weeks—before many people even know they are pregnant—with limited exceptions. Trump was asked how he plans to vote on the ballot measure, which says that "no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider."
The ex-president refused to answer, instead saying: "Well, I'm gonna announce that. I'm gonna actually have a press conference on that at some point in the near future, so I don't want to tell you now. But Florida does have a vote coming up on that and I think probably the vote will go in a little more liberal way than people thought. But I'll be announcing that at the appropriate time."
Noting the comments, the ACLU of Florida—which supports the ballot measure—said on social media: "Reminder: In 2016, Trump promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and he followed through with that promise. Reproductive freedom is on the ballot in Florida this November. Vote yes on 4."
Whether Trump will be allowed to vote in Florida this November—after a New York jury in May found him guilty of 34 felony charges for falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election—will depend on whether and how he is sentenced, according to legal experts.
Trump attacked reproductive rights as president and has bragged about appointing half of the U.S. Supreme Court justices who reversedRoe with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision that triggered a wave of GOP state bans. However, he has also recently tried to distance himself from some harmful restrictions, recognizing them as politically risky.
Reproductive rights advocates have warned against falling for Trump's feigned inconsistency on the issue, taking aim at language in the Republican Party's 2024 platform and arguing that his selection of U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate shows that "a Trump administration will stop at nothing to ban all abortion" at the federal level.
U.S. House Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said on social media Thursday: "Let's be clear. Donald Trump and extreme MAGA Republicans will impose a nationwide abortion ban. Don't believe a word they say otherwise."
The Harris campaign highlighted Trump's response when asked whether he would direct the Food and Drug Administration to revoke access to mifepristone, which is often taken in tandem with misoprostol for medication abortions.
Seemingly suggesting that he is open to such action, Trump told reporters at the press conference, "You could do things that will—would supplement, absolutely, and those things are pretty open and humane."
In a statement about Trump's comments, Julie Chávez Rodriguez, the campaign manager for Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, said that "today Donald Trump made clear what his Project 2025 allies have been saying for months: If he is elected, he will use his power and every tool of the federal government to rip away access to medication abortion, effectively banning abortion nationwide in all 50 states."
"Already, women across the country are suffering because of the nightmare Donald Trump unleashed by overturning Roe v. Wade. That reality—women forced to the brink of death before receiving the care they need, doctors facing the threat of jail time for doing their jobs, and survivors of rape and incest made to flee their states for basic healthcare—will only get worse if Donald Trump wins and wipes out access to medication abortion," she warned. "The stakes this November couldn't be higher, and only one ticket is fighting to protect our freedoms: Vice President Harris and Gov. Tim Walz."
Keep ReadingShow Less
2 Years of Dobbs Show How Abortion Restrictions Harm Us All
The reproductive rights landscape is bleak, but there are still ways to fight for abortion access.
Jun 24, 2024
Two years ago today, the Supreme Court overturned the longstanding abortion rights precedent Roe v. Wade with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Since then, abortion restrictions have had devastating effects not only on pregnant people but on our society more generally, particularly in abortion-hostile states.
The anti-abortion movement is a war on poor women. Banning abortion at the state level means that those in need are often forced to travel to receive care. This requires not only the funds to travel for an abortion and pay for the procedure, which can cost upwards of $1,300, but also the ability to take time off work, find accommodations, or locate childcare.
But it’s also a war on all of us, except the ultrawealthy who can escape the devastating consequences of this post-Roe order. While out-of-state abortions can cost thousands of dollars, it’s estimated that only one in three Americans can afford to pay an unexpected $400 without relying on credit cards or loans.
By fighting for abortion protections at the state level, we can work toward winning back some of the access that we’ve lost in the two years since Dobbs.
And access to abortion is only the start. Denying reproductive services exacerbates existing inequalities and risks lives. The Turnaway Study, which followed nearly 1,000 women for a decade, found that those denied an abortion were four times as likely as those who had received one to be living in poverty years later. Meanwhile, people of color are both more likely to seek abortions and to experience worse health outcomes in pregnancy and childbirth. Black women had the highest rate of abortions in 2019 and died from maternal causes at 2.6 times the rate of white women in 2022.
On a broader scale, maternity care on the whole has worsened. For years, stricter abortion laws and cuts to funding have forced women’s healthcare centers, a key source of reproductive healthcare for low-income women, to close. But now, physicians, often the ones targeted by lawmakers for providing abortions, are leaving altogether and taking their medical expertise with them. Those who remain fear prosecution for providing abortion care, even when it is necessary for their patients’ health. According to a national survey, 68% of OBGYNs report that Dobbs hinders their ability to manage pregnancy-related emergencies.
The Supreme Court was set to decide two abortion-related cases this summer: one about access to the abortion pill mifepristone and another from Idaho questioning whether abortions can be provided to patients in medical emergencies.
On June 13, the Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Food and Drug Administration’s rules for providing and dispensing mifepristone, which allows access to the pills by mail. However, this decision was not a victory for abortion rights so much as it was the avoidance of a terrible setback. The Supreme Court chose to preserve access to the drug in this case on technical terms, meaning the decision doesn’t block future challenges from anti-abortion zealots.
The second abortion decision the Supreme Court will release this summer underscores just how bad the situation has gotten. In states where the only legal exception for abortion is the vague allowance to “save the life of the mother,” doctors are left unsure how much they can do, and their patients pay the price. In Idaho, some hospitals have resorted to flying patients out of state to receive medically necessary abortions, knowing that the trip alone wastes valuable time.
Abortion restrictions harm us all. It’s not only doctors who don’t want to live in abortion-hostile states. All over the U.S., teachers, students, and workers in general are avoiding states with harsh abortion restrictions. One survey found that 45% of young people were likely to reject a job offer if it meant working in a state where abortion was illegal. The combined population strain of people moving out and people refusing to move in compounds the direct economic damages of abortion restrictions.
The reproductive rights landscape is bleak, but there are still ways to fight for abortion access. This November, abortion will be on the ballot in as many as 10 states. These proposals would enshrine the right to abortion, a huge win in states where the procedure is currently banned like Arkansas or South Dakota. By fighting for abortion protections at the state level, we can work toward winning back some of the access that we’ve lost in the two years since Dobbs.
Abortion funds try to mitigate some of the harms of restrictions by helping pregnant individuals pay for their procedures, as well as travel costs when necessary. Since Dobbs, abortion funds have steadily received less in donations, limiting their ability to help people and even forcing some to temporarily shut down.
We have to fight not only for our right to abortion but also for our access. Abortion funds are an essential way to help each other receive invaluable care. Donating our time and money to these funds extends a hand to those who need it most. The Dobbs decision, and resulting abortion restrictions, have done immeasurable damage to our society, but we can still help lift each other up in the face of this new reality.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular