Abortion bans in America increase divisiveness

Justice Kavanaugh

Abortion, one of the most divisive issues in America, has taken on new life with the addition of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court after his bruising confirmation by the Senate after allegations of sexual attacks on a high school classmate. It was not without rancor, or intention that this conservative voice was brought to bear on the Court under the aegis of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Add to that the Alabama abortion bill, the strictest in the nation, and designed to be a test case to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the die is cast for more than a bumpy road as other states in the nation have adopted similar bills, and laws, to restrict what pro-choice supporters see as threats to women’s health, and a right to choose, versus the pro-life community that want no exceptions but to repeal the 1973 legislation.

This February it seemed that the first shot was fired when Kavanaugh gave his dissent to temporarily block  “a strict new Louisiana law that require providers to to get admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic,” and as most observers have noted, this bill is similar to one from Texas that the Court struck down in 2016 for putting an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion.”

While some have seen this as a declaration of war on repeal, others have not, while still others have seen that Robert's support for the temporary block is calculated to politically protect the GOP by joining the conservatives, “in ruling of favor of most state abortion restrictions -- effectively making it illegal in red states, and legal in blue states,” opined Paul Waldman in The Washington Post.

He also added, “If your goal was to destroy Roe and to minimize the backlash Republicans will suffer at the pools, that’s how you’d do it.”

Whether this prediction will prove to be true is debatable in some quarters, but the news from the Illinois General Assembly, which recently approved a woman’s right to an abortion, might be a first step.

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, (D-Chicago), sponsored a liberal House bill, that was also passed last Friday in the Illinois Senate, titled the Reproductive Healthcare Act (RHA), it ensures women’s access to reproductive healthcare in Illinois..

“States across the country are passing legislation to undermine Roe v. Wade to fill the pipeline to the Supreme Court to eventually overturn our rights. The Reproductive Healthcare Act is testament that we will not go back in Illinois,” Cassidy said. “To our neighboring states, Ohio, Missouri and Indiana I say our rights will not be taken away, not on my watch.”

State Rep. Cassidy

A statement from her office noted that “Cassidy’s Senate Bill 25 solidifies that all forms of reproductive healthcare are fundamental rights and codifies current medical practice standards. The bill expands reproductive healthcare and removes decades old criminal penalties against physicians performing abortions along with spousal consent laws and waiting periods that are currently found in Illinois statute. “

It also, somewhat prophetically, quoted her with the following: “With recent appointments to the Supreme Court and constant threats from the Federal government to overturn our rights, our fight for choice and bodily autonomy is more important than ever.”

The bill now awaits Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s signature, and while some have seen this as a “take that” bill, Cassidy’s legislative effort, and remarks, echo that of many pro-choice groups across the nation; albeit in areas where they are bitterly fought, such as in Alabama.

“The Alabama Senate passed the bill 25-6 late Tuesday night. The law only allows exceptions "to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother," for ectopic pregnancy and if the "unborn child has a lethal anomaly," CNN reported last month, and also that “Democrats re-introduced an amendment to exempt rape and incest victims, but the motion failed on an 11-21 vote.”

"No matter one's personal view on abortion, we can all recognize that, at least for the short term, this bill may similarly be unenforceable," Ivey wrote. "As citizens of this great country, we must always respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court even when we disagree with their decisions. Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur."

Gov. Ivey

With continued coverage, CNN reported that In nearby Missouri, “After a four-day reprieve, Missourians could soon learn whether their state will become the first with no abortion clinics. Circuit Court Judge Michael Stelzer is hearing arguments Tuesday before deciding whether the state's last abortion clinic, Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, can continue performing abortions.

The clinic is suing the state over its refusal to renew its license. That license was supposed to expire Friday. But the judge intervened during a hearing Friday, saying the license can stay in effect until another hearing Tuesday.”

Under the guise of patient safety, Gov. Mark Parson is saying that there was a patient complaint, but has provided no details, and Planned Parenthood is protesting the need for meeting the terms of licensing agreements and publicly states, that, "In order to renew the license, Planned Parenthood bent over backwards to meet some frankly medically unnecessary and inappropriate requests from the state. But they did it," said M'Evie Mead, director of Planned Parenthood Advocates in Missouri.

“Planned Parenthood said the state's refusal to renew the clinic's license is just another tactic to "restrict abortion access and deny Missourians their right to choose abortion."

“If the Planned Parenthood clinic is forced to stop providing abortions, Missouri would be the first state in the nation to block the procedure in more than 45 years," added CNN.

Last month Missouri also passed a bill that outlawed abortions after 8 weeks, and with no exception for rape or incest.

But, as Vox reported, “The law is scheduled to go into effect in August, but is all but sure to be challenged in court. If it does go into effect, “it would be nearly impossible for patients in Missouri to access abortion care,” Ashley Gray, a state advocacy adviser for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Vox.”

Gov. Parson

Another opposition tactic to prevent legal abortions, under Roe, was Kentucky’s last abortion clinic, that in 2017, nearly lost its license under a requirement that transfer agreements, with nearby hospitals were needed, in case of an emergency development; but under federal law, emergency rooms are required to accept anyone that shows up for treatment.

“The Planned Parenthood Action Fund reports that so far in 2019, there have been 300 anti-abortion bills introduced in 36 states.”

Many of these are the so-called “heartbeat bills” that say that if a fetus has a heartbeat, which comes at an average of 6 weeks, a point at which some women are not even aware that they are pregnant, passed in states such as Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Arkansas and Iowa.

“This is an extremely dangerous time for women’s health all around the country,” Leana Wen, president of the Action Fund, told the Washington Post.

Yet, despite the legislative activity “Two-thirds of Americans want Roe v. Wade left in place, and most who hold that view would be disappointed or angry if the ruling were to be overturned someday, a new CBS News poll finds.”

It has also been shown, in previous polls that in places where abortion is the most restrictive, abortions are the most prevalent, especially those that are conducted by the so-called “back alley butchers” of yesteryear.

Frequently unmentioned, is the color line between access for white and black women (and brown women) which gives the former more access, especially white women of means, with trips to nearby states that do allow it, or trips abroad, often under the disguise of visiting relatives, or spending the summer abroad, which was common among wealthy young white women in mid-century America.

As far back as 2011, the National Latina Institute noted that: “Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $10,830 for a single woman with no children. Due to systemic disparities that result in less access to quality education and wealth in this country, women of color and immigrant women are disproportionately low-income and are deeply impacted by barriers to health care. We know that women denied abortion coverage will postpone paying for other basic needs like food, rent, heating and utilities in order to save money needed for an abortion. Yet, not all are able to cobble together the necessary funds. Currently, 25 percent of poor women who want to access abortion services cannot because the federal government refuses to pay for the legal medical procedure.”

Extending the often dire situation, In 1989, 16 prominent Black women signed a pledge, published in major newspapers, noting their support for safe and legal abortions, and noted that for some,“It’s been a matter of survival. Hunger and homelessness. Inadequate housing and income to properly provide for themselves and their children. Family instability. Rape. Incest. Abuse. Too young, too old, too sick, too tired. Emotional, physical, mental, economic, social — the reasons for not carrying a pregnancy to term are endless and varied, personal, urgent, and private.”