Who Is Leading The Fight For Abortion Rights?

The push for abortion laws in the US has been gaining momentum, with 13 states currently banning abortion and more seeking to restrict or prohibit access. The Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022 has given states total control over abortion policies, resulting in a divide between abortion deserts and havens. The Biden administration has taken steps to protect reproductive rights, including safeguarding access to abortion and contraception, but the future of abortion laws remains uncertain. Corporate campaign donations to anti-abortion lawmakers have come under scrutiny, with well-known companies contributing significant amounts to those seeking to restrict abortion access. As the debate intensifies, the topic of abortion continues to be a divisive issue in US politics, with citizens, activists, and politicians alike advocating for their respective beliefs.

The Biden administration's executive order to protect access to reproductive health care services

The Executive Order outlines several key actions to safeguard access to reproductive health care services, including abortion and contraception. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take specific steps to protect and expand access to abortion care, such as increasing access to medication abortion and ensuring emergency medical care for all patients, including pregnant women and those experiencing pregnancy loss. The Order also addresses the protection of patient privacy and their access to accurate information, combatting digital surveillance, and protecting sensitive health information.

Furthermore, the Executive Order promotes the safety and security of patients, providers, and clinics, especially those providing care for out-of-state patients. It establishes an Interagency Task Force on Reproductive Health Care Access, coordinated by HHS and the White House Gender Policy Council, to ensure a swift and coordinated Federal approach to addressing reproductive rights and protecting access to health care. The Task Force includes the Attorney General, who will provide technical assistance to states offering legal protection to out-of-state patients and providers of legal reproductive health care.

The Biden-Harris Administration has also taken additional steps to protect access to reproductive health care. These include supporting providers and clinics, promoting access to accurate information through ReproductiveRights.gov, providing leave for federal workers traveling for medical care, and protecting access to reproductive health care services for service members, DoD civilians, and military families. The Administration continues to call on Congress to codify the right to abortion into federal law.

Overall, the Biden Administration's Executive Order aims to protect women's fundamental rights and ensure access to safe and legal abortions, addressing the implications of the Supreme Court's decision on the health, lives, and well-being of women across the country.

Corporate funding of anti-abortion lawmakers

A report by Equity Forward revealed that 15 prominent companies contributed significant sums to lawmakers who sponsored oppressive anti-abortion legislation. These companies, including AT&T, Boeing, Coca-Cola, Comcast, Delta Airlines, General Motors, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Lyft, Mastercard, Microsoft, PepsiCo, Pfizer, Uber, and Walmart, boasted their commitment to gender equality while simultaneously funding politicians aiming to restrict abortion access.

For example, in Louisiana, the law at the centre of the June Medical Services v. Russo case was introduced by 51 state representatives and five state senators, with State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D) and State Sen. Almond Gaston "A.G." Crowe (R) as the lead sponsors. According to the National Institute on Money in Politics, many of Jackson's top political donors are corporations, including AT&T, Entergy, and Exxon Mobil. Crowe, the main Senate sponsor, shared corporate donors with Jackson, further illustrating the role of corporate funding in supporting anti-abortion lawmakers.

During the 2019 election cycle in Louisiana, publicly traded companies contributed more than $400,000 to anti-choice candidates from both Democratic and Republican parties. Other notable corporations that contributed to anti-abortion candidates in the state include Amazon, Walmart, CBS, Comcast, Disney, Facebook, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Verizon Communications.

The complex nature of campaign finance rules at the state level allows corporations to donate to state candidates in approximately half of the states. This has enabled corporate funding to influence the election of state lawmakers who support and enact restrictive abortion laws.

The involvement of corporate funding in the push for abortion laws raises ethical concerns, especially when companies publicly advocate for gender equality and women's empowerment. As a result, there have been increasing calls for corporate CEOs to put their money where their mouth is and defund lawmakers who sponsor abortion bans, instead diverting their donations to organisations supporting women's rights.

The criminalisation of abortion

Abortion is a highly contentious issue, with varying degrees of legislation and restriction around the world. The criminalisation of abortion has a significant impact on those seeking abortions, as well as those assisting them. In some countries, such as the United States, Sierra Leone, Poland, and Morocco, abortion is criminalised, with penalties ranging from fines to life imprisonment. These laws not only affect those seeking abortions but also those providing information, assistance, or abortion services.

Additionally, criminalisation can deter healthcare providers from offering abortion services due to fear of prosecution, resulting in a lower availability of trained providers and relevant skills in the health workforce. It also contributes to bureaucracy within health systems.

The decriminalisation of abortion is a crucial step towards ensuring safe and legal access to abortion. It involves removing abortion from penal/criminal laws and ensuring no criminal penalties are imposed on those seeking, providing, or assisting with abortions. Decriminalisation does not make individuals more vulnerable to forced or coerced abortions, as these non-consensual interventions would constitute serious assault.

Various human rights bodies, including the CEDAW Committee, the CESCR, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, support the full decriminalisation of abortion. They emphasise that states should not criminalise abortion procedures or punish those who undergo or assist with abortions. Instead, states have a responsibility to provide post-abortion care and take steps to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality associated with unsafe abortions.

The push for abortion laws and the criminalisation of abortion is a complex and highly debated topic, with human rights, health, and ethical considerations at play.

The Dobbs decision

The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The Court's decision overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), returning to federal and state legislatures the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal statutory law.

The role of state governments

The "Expanded Access" category refers to states where the right to abortion is protected by state statutes or constitutions, and additional laws and policies have been implemented to enhance access to abortion care. These states have taken proactive measures to ensure abortion care is accessible and patient-centred.

In contrast, the "Protected" category includes states where the right to abortion is protected by state law, but there are limitations on access to care. This may include various restrictions on abortion, such as parental involvement laws or mandatory waiting periods.

The "Not Protected" category refers to states where abortion may still be accessible, but it is not protected by state law. In these states, there is uncertainty about whether the legislature will enact a ban on abortion, and concern among abortion rights advocates is warranted.

The "Hostile" category includes states that have expressed a desire to prohibit abortion entirely, both inside and outside their borders. These states are actively seeking to revive old abortion bans or enact new ones, and none of them have legal protections for abortion in place.

Finally, the "Illegal" category comprises states that have criminalised abortion and enforce these bans through criminal penalties. These states have some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

State governments in the "Expanded Access" and "Protected" categories have played a crucial role in pushing for abortion laws that protect reproductive rights and ensure access to safe and legal abortion care. On the other hand, state governments in the "Hostile" and "Illegal" categories have been driving the push for more restrictive abortion laws, with some seeking to prohibit abortion entirely.

The impact of state governments' actions extends beyond abortion access. For example, the restriction or banning of abortion has led to a decrease in the number of obstetricians in some states, straining access to other gynecological care. Additionally, the push to expand the rights of a fetus has resulted in an increase in pregnancy-related prosecutions, with a reported 210 women criminally charged in 12 states in the year after the Dobbs decision, according to one source.

State governments continue to play a critical role in shaping abortion laws and reproductive rights in their respective states, and their actions have far-reaching consequences for the lives and health of people across the country.

Frequently asked questions