Who Is Leading The Push For Abortion Law Changes?

Abortion laws in the US have undergone a sea change since the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, which eliminated the Constitutional right to abortion and gave states the power to restrict or ban it. This has resulted in a patchwork of differing abortion laws across the country, with abortion currently illegal in 13 states, protected in 21, and at risk of being severely limited or prohibited in 26 states and three territories. The push for abortion laws is driven by anti-abortion lawmakers, often funded by corporate campaign dollars, and has led to a range of restrictive measures such as 'heartbeat laws' and Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws. The impact of these laws has been significant, with clinics closing, physicians leaving restrictive states, and abortion pills being heavily restricted. The Biden administration has taken steps to protect reproductive rights, including signing an Executive Order safeguarding access to reproductive health care services and establishing an Interagency Task Force to coordinate federal efforts. However, restoring nationwide access to abortion will likely take significant time and effort, and the issue of abortion has become a defining one in the upcoming presidential election.

The role of corporations in influencing anti-abortion legislation

Corporations have played a significant role in influencing anti-abortion legislation, with their actions and stances having the power to shape public opinion and impact legislation. While many corporations publicly claim to have a core commitment to women's rights and gender equality, their actions behind the scenes tell a different story.

In the United States, several well-known corporations have been exposed for their political donations to anti-abortion lawmakers and organizations, despite their public statements in support of women's rights. These corporations include AT&T, Amazon, Citi, CVS, Coca-Cola, Google, Walmart, and Verizon. AT&T, for example, has contributed nearly $1.5 million to anti-abortion politicians and organizations, while Coca-Cola has donated over $2.6 million. These donations often flow through a maze of political action committees (PACs), trade associations, and dark money vehicles, making it difficult to track the exact source and recipient of the funds.

The consequences of these corporate contributions can be seen in the passage of restrictive abortion laws in states like Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas, which have some of the nation's most stringent anti-abortion bans. For instance, in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis received $10.1 million from the Republican Governors Association, which has been a key supporter of anti-abortion candidates. Similarly, in Texas, over $7.6 million from the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) has flowed into state legislative races, including a $50,000 donation to one of the Republicans who sponsored the state's abortion ban.

While some corporations may claim that they are politically neutral and that their donations do not equate to support for specific policies, their financial contributions speak volumes. This discrepancy between words and actions has led to criticism and public outcry, particularly from their employees and consumers who support abortion rights.

In response to this growing trend, some corporations have taken a stand against anti-abortion legislation. For example, the Walt Disney Company has opposed several anti-abortion bills in Florida and has offered abortion travel benefits to its employees. However, their silence on certain bills and the political backlash they have faced underscores the complex nature of corporate activism in this arena.

In conclusion, corporations play a significant role in influencing anti-abortion legislation through their financial contributions and public stances. While some corporations work to advance restrictive abortion laws, others strive to counteract these efforts by supporting gender-marginalized communities. The impact of corporate activism on legislation is evident, and it remains to be seen how this dynamic will unfold in the future, particularly with the increasing proposal of discriminatory legislation across the United States.

The impact of abortion restrictions on healthcare providers

Abortion restrictions have a significant impact on healthcare providers, affecting their ability to deliver evidence-based care and potentially compromising their patients' health and safety.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Criminalisation of abortion and restrictive laws create a "chilling effect", deterring healthcare providers from offering abortion services due to fear of criminal liability. This can result in providers overapplying restrictions beyond what is legally required, further limiting access to abortion care. Additionally, these restrictions can hinder providers from offering post-abortion care for complications arising from unsafe abortions or other pregnancy-related issues, as they may be concerned about potential legal repercussions.

Workload and Staffing Challenges

Abortion restrictions have been linked to increased workload and staffing issues for healthcare providers. Expanding the role of health workers involved in abortion care can lead to short-term logistical and financial challenges, requiring changes to staffing and increased costs. This may result in providers opting not to offer abortion care or limiting its availability, ultimately reducing access for patients.

Training and Specialisation

With abortion bans in place, healthcare providers, especially obstetricians and gynecologists, may no longer receive specialised training in pregnancy termination. This lack of training can lead to a decrease in the quality of care for patients seeking abortions or experiencing miscarriage. As a result, patients may face delays in receiving appropriate medical interventions, putting their health and safety at risk.

Impact on Patient Safety and Health Outcomes

Abortion restrictions can have severe consequences for patient safety and health outcomes. When abortion is restricted or banned, patients may resort to unsafe methods, such as self-induced abortions, which can lead to fatal consequences and contribute to maternal deaths and disabilities. Healthcare providers are placed in a challenging position, as they must balance legal restrictions with their ethical obligation to provide the best care for their patients.

Mental Health and Well-being

Access to Medication

Abortion restrictions can also affect healthcare providers' ability to access necessary medications for abortion care, such as mifepristone and misoprostol. In some cases, these medications may be banned or restricted, hindering providers' ability to offer evidence-based care and potentially putting patients at risk.

Stigma and Discrimination

Abortion stigma and discrimination can affect not only patients but also healthcare providers. Providers who offer abortion services may face social stigma, religious opposition, and even physical and verbal attacks. This can create a hostile environment, impacting their mental health and sense of safety.

The use of technology and data in abortion surveillance

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years protected the federal constitutional right to abortion. This decision has given states total leeway to restrict abortion or prohibit it altogether.

Data collection and sharing

When abortion was criminalized in the U.S. before 1973, law enforcement didn't have the technology and surveillance data that police departments and other authorities can now access. With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, there are concerns that tactics and tools already used by law enforcement and immigration authorities could be adapted to track anyone seeking or even considering an abortion.

A web of data

The data shared between agencies is extensive, with federal authorities like ICE accessing a complex web of databases that glean data from a variety of sources, including fingerprint data collected when someone is arrested. According to ICE's website, these data-sharing programs enable the agency to work with "law enforcement partners in the shared responsibility for ensuring the safety of our communities" by "using biometrics to identify foreign-born individuals arrested for criminal offenses."

Surveillance of activists

There are also concerns that ICE has monitored the social media of immigration activists. People are posting images on social media about being at abortion protests, which could be used as evidence by law enforcement and ICE.

Digital footprints

Police departments have already gone to great lengths to investigate pregnant women by looking at their digital footprints. In one case, prosecutors used data from a woman's cell phone and iPad to build a case against her. Evidence presented included text messages to a friend, proof from her email, and other online research she conducted.

Location tracking

Cell phone technology can track user data, including applications, location services, and browsing history. Law enforcement has also been able to obtain and use this information in criminal cases. There are concerns that location data could be used to prosecute people who seek an abortion or medical care for a miscarriage, as well as those who assist them.

Protecting privacy

Abortion rights activists suggest that people in states where abortion is outlawed should limit the creation of data in the first place. For instance, they urge turning off phone location services or leaving your phone at home when seeking reproductive health care. They also recommend using privacy-conscious web browsers such as Brave, Firefox, and DuckDuckGo.

The criminalisation of abortion and its consequences

Abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy. It is considered basic healthcare for millions of women, girls, and people who can get pregnant. However, the criminalisation of abortion has far-reaching consequences, impacting not only those seeking abortions but also healthcare providers and society as a whole. This essay will explore the effects of criminalising abortion and argue that it is a violation of human rights, adversely affecting health outcomes, health systems, and the enjoyment of human rights more broadly.

Impact on People Seeking Abortions

The criminalisation of abortion creates numerous barriers for those seeking to terminate their pregnancies. It delays access to abortion care, as healthcare providers may hesitate to perform the procedure until a woman's life is in danger, falling within the legal exceptions to criminal prohibitions. This delay can have severe consequences, as it may lead to unsafe abortions, which carry a higher risk of maternal mortality and morbidity. Additionally, criminalisation imposes burdens on individuals seeking abortions, including unnecessary travel, financial costs, and difficulty accessing post-abortion care. It also contributes to stigma and emotional distress, as those seeking abortions may fear legal repercussions.

Furthermore, criminalisation limits access to safe and legal abortions, pushing people towards unlawful and unsafe alternatives. This is particularly true for marginalised communities, who already face social, economic, and political barriers to reproductive healthcare. As a result, many are forced to resort to unsafe abortion methods, which can lead to short- or long-term health issues and even death. The World Health Organization estimates that unsafe abortions cause approximately 25 million preventable maternal deaths worldwide each year.

Impact on Healthcare Providers

Criminalisation also has significant implications for healthcare providers. It increases their workload as they must navigate complex regulations and take steps to avoid criminal investigations. Healthcare providers may refer patients to other professionals, provide detailed written statements, and exercise caution when preparing paperwork to protect themselves and their patients from legal consequences. This added burden can deter providers from offering abortion services, reducing the availability of trained professionals and increasing bureaucracy within health systems.

Additionally, criminalisation can negatively impact the relationship between healthcare providers and their patients. Providers may feel they cannot provide optimal care due to legal restrictions and may be hesitant to offer abortions, even in cases of rape, incest, or fatal fetal impairment. This hesitancy can put providers at risk of legal or professional sanctions and further limit access to safe and legal abortions.

Systemic Consequences

The criminalisation of abortion has far-reaching systemic consequences. It contributes to increased maternal mortality and morbidity, as individuals seek unsafe abortions or delay accessing care until they become severely ill. It also creates a black market for abortion medications and distorts record-keeping, making it difficult to accurately track the impact of abortion-related policies. Additionally, criminalisation interferes with the realisation of human rights, including the rights to life, health, equality, non-discrimination, privacy, and bodily autonomy.

The criminalisation of abortion has detrimental effects on individuals seeking abortions, healthcare providers, and society as a whole. It limits access to safe and legal abortions, increases maternal mortality and morbidity, and undermines fundamental human rights. Decriminalisation is necessary to ensure that abortion is available, accessible, and of high quality. This includes removing abortion from penal/criminal laws, not applying other criminal offences to abortion-related activities, and ensuring that there are no criminal penalties for those involved. By addressing the harmful consequences of criminalisation, we can work towards a future where abortion rights are respected and protected as human rights.

The push for abortion rights and protection at the state level

Currently, abortion is illegal in 13 states, and it is protected by state law in 21 states and Washington, D.C. However, even in states where abortion is protected, there are often limitations on access to care. This has created a divide between "abortion deserts," where abortion is illegal and access is limited, and "abortion havens," where abortion remains accessible.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, President Biden signed an Executive Order to protect access to reproductive health care services, including abortion. This order directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take several actions, such as protecting access to medication abortion, ensuring emergency medical care for pregnant women, and safeguarding patient privacy. Additionally, the order established an Interagency Task Force to coordinate federal interagency policymaking and program development related to reproductive health care access.

At the state level, there is a growing push for abortion rights and protection. Citizens in six states have voted for ballot measures protecting abortion access, and similar measures will be on the ballot in 10 states in the upcoming election. Additionally, some states have passed laws to protect abortion providers and helpers from civil and criminal consequences when providing care to out-of-state residents.

The push for abortion rights and protection is also evident in the actions of abortion providers themselves. For example, Tammi Kromenaker, the owner and director of the Red River Women's Clinic in North Dakota, relocated her clinic to Minnesota following the Supreme Court's decision. Minnesota had passed abortion protections, providing a safer and more accessible environment for abortion care.

While the federal government works to protect reproductive rights through executive actions and legislative efforts, the push for abortion rights and protection at the state level will continue to be a critical aspect of ensuring access to safe and legal abortions across the country.

Frequently asked questions