Beyond restoring Roe: Democrats see moment to ‘reimagine’ abortion rights
The spotlight at the Democratic Party’s national convention was a dramatic shift from just four years ago, another sign of how radically the politics of abortion have changed, and how much the Democrats are relying on Kamala Harris’s support for the issue to rally voters.
It was one of the opening night’s most dramatic and sober moments last week. Three women emerged on the main stage, one at a time, each in a spotlight against the darkness. Amanda Zurawski, standing beside her husband, told of how she nearly died when her baby would not survive and she could not get abortion care in Texas. Kaitlyn Joshua spoke of bleeding, miscarrying and being turned away from two emergency rooms in Louisiana. And Hadley Duvall of Kentucky told a harrowing story of being impregnated by her stepfather at age 12. In the huge convention hall, everyone was silent, listening.
SOURCE: New York Times, by Elizabeth Dias, Lisa Lerer, 20 August 2024 ; PHOTO by Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times
+++
Characteristics of foreign-born abortion patients in the US, 2021–2022
by Alice F Cartwright, Ava Braccia, Doris W Chiu, Rachel K Jones
Contraception: 29 July 2024 (Open access)
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to examine the characteristics of foreign-born abortion patients compared to those born in the Unites States and to explore whether barriers for foreign-born patients varied by state Medicaid coverage of abortion care.
Study design: We used data from the Guttmacher Institute’s 2021–2022 Abortion Patient Survey, a national sample of patients obtaining clinic-based abortion care in the United States. We compared sociodemographic characteristics of foreign- and US born respondents, as well as barriers to care. Among foreign-born patients, we compared those in Medicaid coverage states vs states that restrict Medicaid coverage.
Results: Some 12% of the 6429 respondents were born outside the United States. Compared to US born patients, they were less likely to have Medicaid coverage and more likely to be Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or Hispanic, to have no health insurance, and to have completed the survey in Spanish. In addition, foreign-born patients were more likely to report delays because they did not know where to get an abortion (18.3% vs. 12.6% for US born). Compared to foreign-born patients living in Medicaid coverage states, those in non-Medicaid states reported multiple barriers, particularly related to cost: respondents in non-Medicaid states were three times as likely to pay out of pocket for abortion (75.8% vs 27.4%) and five times more likely to rely on financial assistance (24.1% vs 4.8%).
Conclusions: Foreign-born abortion patients face knowledge and financial barriers to accessing abortion care compared to those who are US born, and these financial burdens are amplified for those living in non-Medicaid coverage states.
Implications: Abortion patients born outside the United States may have overcome many obstacles to obtain care. Expanding state Medicaid coverage of abortion could reduce cost burdens for foreign-born populations.
Discussion (first paragraph): This study provides insights into the characteristics and circumstances of a national sample of foreign-born individuals able to access abortion care just prior to the Dobbs decision. More than one in 10 respondents in our sample (12%) was foreign born. Similar to prior research, we found that foreign-born respondents had some characteristics that might imply access to more knowledge or resources than their US born counterparts. For example, they were more likely to be older, married, and college graduates. Some foreign-born patients may both have more knowledge about where abortion is available and be more willing to complete a survey about their experiences. Simultaneously, we found that foreign born respondents were also more likely to be Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or Hispanic, to be uninsured, to not have completed high school, and to complete the survey in Spanish—all characteristics that may make navigating the health system and obtaining health care more challenging. These varying findings reflect the heterogeneity of foreign-born populations in the United States and the need for further disaggregation by race and ethnicity in abortion research.
+++
Judge, apparently without an ounce of medical knowledge, rules that New York crisis pregnancy centers can tell patients about ‘abortion pill reversal’
Two New York-based, “crisis pregnancy centers” [anti-abortion] and a national anti-abortion group have been given permission by a presumably anti-abortion and/or medically ignorant US District judge to tell women it is safe to use a potentially dangerous “treatment” (that doesn’t work) to reverse the effect of mifepristone and stop the pregnancy being aborted. This is a 100% false claim and a big setback for efforts by the state’s Attorney General to crack down on such false claims.
The judge’s reason? That the US Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees free speech. However, the Amendment does not say everyone can tell bald-faced lies, especially when they might put someone’s health and life at risk. The judge in the case even told the anti-abortion people who sought his advice that they can “speak freely” about “abortion pill reversal” and that they can “say that it is safe and effective for a pregnant woman to use in consultation with her doctor”. That’s a judge who should be sacked and prosecuted for putting lives at risk.
The history – “Abortion pill reversal” had a thorough airing starting as far back as 2017, when other US anti-abortion groups (successfully in some cases) got their state legislatures to pass laws allowing promotion of “abortion pill reversal” too. Why did they say it was needed? Because women who had decided to have an abortion and had obtained abortion pills (mifepristone and misoprostol) – might suddenly change their minds! Not before they took the pills, which certainly does sometimes happen and is more than fair enough, but it doesn’t happen after they have started the process by taking the mifepristone. No. There is no evidence of this, except when an anti-abortion doctor is in the room encouraging them to change their minds.
You can find the history of how this came about on the Campaign website’s news archive page where you can read 11 news reports about this scam, mostly from the USA, starting with the first report in 2017 (at the bottom of the page), and in all the reports posted on that page up to this year, often promoted by some very suspicious “medics” and others who were anti-abortion and deliberately lied about it being safe and effective, just as the groups who hoodwinked the judge in this current case must have done. Read also the report by abortion rights researchers in California who found there was neither efficacy nor safety in doing what the New York judge has just encouraged.
SOURCES: Reuters, by Brendan Pierson. 23 August 2024 ; ICWRSA News Archive ; USA – Research on claims of “abortion pill reversal” stopped early, by Marge Berer, ICWRSA Newsletter, 10 December 2019 ; PHOTO: Abortion Care Network