Anti-Abortion Laws: Planned Parenthood Under Threat

Anti-abortion laws in the United States have had a significant impact on Planned Parenthood and its patients. At the federal level, the Hyde Amendment and a federal abortion ban limit abortion access, with the former restricting insurance coverage for low-income individuals. State-level attacks on Planned Parenthood include attempts to eliminate funding for family planning and block their participation in public health programs, as well as the introduction of Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, which place unreasonable requirements on health centres. These laws aim to shut down abortion providers by imposing onerous and medically unnecessary regulations. Unconstitutional abortion bans at specific weeks of pregnancy and non-surgical abortion bans also pose challenges, violating women's constitutional rights to make their own medical decisions. The consequences of these anti-abortion laws are evident in Texas, where defunding Planned Parenthood led to a 27% increase in births among women on Medicaid and a decrease in the number of patients served by publicly funded family planning programs. The ultimate goal of politicians opposed to abortion rights is to implement a nationwide ban, threatening the reproductive rights and freedoms of individuals across the country.

Attacks on Planned Parenthood patients

Planned Parenthood health centers provide high-quality, affordable reproductive health care, including abortion, to 2.4 million people across the country. Attacks on Planned Parenthood patients vary from state to state, but the outcome is always the same: women's ability to receive basic health care is severely undermined.

One of the main lines of attack is "defunding" Planned Parenthood. When politicians talk about "defunding" Planned Parenthood, they mean blocking patients who depend on public healthcare funds from getting their care at Planned Parenthood health centers. Many of these patients are people with low incomes who don't have health insurance or who rely on public healthcare funding like Medicaid. Due to the Hyde Amendment, people on this type of assistance cannot use federal funding for abortion. Attempts to block these patients from getting care at Planned Parenthood only keeps them from getting preventive services, like birth control and lifesaving cancer and STD screenings.

In 2015, anti-abortion extremists released deceptively edited videos that made false claims about Planned Parenthood health centers. The videos were completely debunked, but anti-abortion members of Congress, state legislators, and presidential candidates used the faked videos to push their anti-Planned Parenthood agenda.

Another way in which anti-women's health legislators are trying to eliminate funding for family planning or block Planned Parenthood's participation in public health programs is through Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. These laws place unreasonable requirements on health care centers, such as requiring hallways in a health center to measure a certain width. These regulations have nothing to do with improving the health or safety of women and are instead politically motivated. The real goal of TRAP restrictions is to shut down abortion providers when they are unable to comply.

Unconstitutional abortion bans, non-surgical abortion restrictions, biased counseling, mandatory ultrasounds, and waiting periods are other ways in which attacks on Planned Parenthood patients are carried out. These attacks make it more difficult for women to obtain a safe, legal abortion and interfere with personal, private medical decisions.

Unconstitutional abortion bans

Despite this, extreme bans on abortion at specific weeks of pregnancy continue to be proposed and enacted by state legislatures. These bans are not only bad policy, but they also clearly violate women's constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a state may not ban abortion prior to viability, yet some states have enacted bans on abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. This goes against the Supreme Court's ruling and takes away a woman's right to make her own medical decisions.

The impact of these unconstitutional abortion bans falls disproportionately on communities of colour, low-income communities, rural communities, immigrant communities, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ folks, and young people. These communities already face historic and systemic barriers to healthcare, and abortion bans only serve to exacerbate these inequalities. Furthermore, abortion bans can trap people into inhumane situations, forcing them to remain pregnant or undergo dangerous and illegal abortions.

The right to abortion is a fundamental human right, and restricting access to abortion is dangerous and inhumane. Unconstitutional abortion bans are a direct attack on the freedom and autonomy of individuals, and they have severe consequences for the health and well-being of those affected. It is important to continue fighting against these bans and to ensure that everyone has the right to control their own body and make their own medical decisions.

Non-surgical abortion restrictions

Non-surgical abortion, also known as medical abortion, is a safe and effective way to end a pregnancy by using abortion-inducing drugs as an alternative to surgical procedures. In the US, women have been legally and safely using non-surgical abortion for years. However, anti-abortion activists have been working to create barriers and restrictions to block access to this procedure.

Bills restricting non-surgical abortion are being considered in several states, including North Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi. In states where these restrictions have been passed, some women have been forced to undergo a surgical procedure when they would have preferred a non-surgical abortion. Non-surgical abortion can offer a more private and less invasive method of ending a pregnancy in a setting that the woman feels comfortable in. It also allows her to decide when and where the abortion starts and who should be with her during the procedure. In addition, medical studies have shown that non-surgical abortion is as safe and effective as a surgical abortion.

The restrictions on non-surgical abortion are part of a broader trend of attacks on abortion access in the US, including targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP), unconstitutional abortion bans, biased counseling, mandatory ultrasounds, and waiting periods. These restrictions have a significant impact on women's health and well-being, undermining their ability to receive basic healthcare and make their own medical decisions.

Biased counselling, mandatory ultrasounds and waiting periods

Biased counselling, mandatory ultrasounds, and waiting periods are all tactics used by anti-abortion lawmakers to restrict access to abortions. These laws are designed to make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions and to influence their decision-making process.

Biased Counselling

Biased counselling laws require women to receive counselling from unlicensed and unregulated "crisis pregnancy centres" that often provide inaccurate and misleading information. These centres may shame women or try to coerce them into continuing their pregnancies. An evaluation of Texas's biased counselling law in 2011 found that it did not enhance health information but instead placed unnecessary hurdles before women seeking abortions, making them feel ashamed and adding additional costs to the procedure.

Mandatory Ultrasounds

In some states, women are required to undergo an ultrasound before they can get an abortion. This regulation is sometimes imposed even on victims of rape and incest. In some cases, physicians are mandated to force women to view the ultrasound image and deliver politically motivated statements, regardless of whether the woman consents. For example, since mid-2013, Wisconsin abortion providers have been legally required to display and describe pre-abortion ultrasound images to patients. While ultrasound use in abortion care is routine for determining the gestation of the pregnancy, mandatory ultrasound viewing laws are not based on any identified medical need.

Waiting Periods

Many states also have waiting period laws, requiring a specified amount of time, often 24 hours, to pass between the initial consultation and the abortion procedure. In states where counselling must be received in person, this effectively requires two separate trips, which can be a significant hardship for some women. For example, South Dakota passed a bill that exempts weekends and holidays from the 72-hour waiting period, meaning women could be forced to wait up to 5 or 6 days for an abortion.

Personhood amendments

"Personhood" amendments are among the top threats to abortion rights that Planned Parenthood is fighting against at the state level. These so-called "personhood" measures could interfere with personal, private, medical decisions relating to birth control, access to fertility treatment, management of a miscarriage, and access to safe and legal abortion.

The measures seek to elevate the legal status of a fetus, at any stage of development, to that of an adult. This would effectively criminalize all abortion services and potentially certain types of birth control, allow investigations into miscarriages, and endanger access to in vitro therapies.

In Colorado, for example, anti-choice organizations have repeatedly tried to erode the legal underpinnings of abortion through such "personhood" initiatives. In 2008, Amendment 48, the nation's first "fetal personhood" ballot initiative, sought to define the term "person" in the state constitution as the start of biological development. This amendment was defeated with around 70% of the vote, and two subsequent attempts in 2010 and 2014 also failed to receive majority support. However, anti-choice legislators continue to introduce similar legislation year after year.

Planned Parenthood and its allies have worked to defeat these dangerous ballot initiatives and bills, protecting access to safe abortion services, contraception, and in-vitro services for families in Colorado and across the country.

Frequently asked questions