MAI FLEMING , FAMILY PHYSICIAN
Mrs. K was a refugee who recently arrived in the U.S. to reunite with her husband and children. They arrived safely a few weeks ahead of her. On her initial refugee health exam, Mrs. K discovered she was six weeks pregnant. She had just arrived after escaping persecution in southeast Asia and faced the tremendous task of settling herself and her family in a new home. It was impossible for her to contemplate bringing another child into her family at the time. When Mrs. K came into the primary care clinic where I work seeking a medication abortion, I was happy to help her through the process.
In California, where my primary practice is located, any pregnancy-related care, including abortion care, is covered by Medicaid. Any person who is eligible for Medicaid and seeking an abortion for any reason can obtain the health care services they need without delay. That means access to an abortion as soon as someone decides, rather than having to delay for weeks to scrape together funds to pay out of pocket.
Graphic and gory images sent to mailboxes and waved in public have long been a tool of anti-abortion campaigns. Does it count as hate propaganda against people who need abortions? Let’s test it against the Supreme Court-endorsed “Hallmarks of Hate.”
Posted on July 23, 2021
By Hazel Woodrow
Across social media platforms, communities warn each other about the presence of graphic anti-abortion propaganda in their neighbourhoods. These conversations often question the legality of stuffing gory pamphlets into strangers’ mailboxes en masse, or of displaying such imagery on banners and placards in busy metropolitan areas.
Search the subreddit for nearly any city across Canada and you’ll find frequent warnings. A Halifax local remarked on the “Extremely graphic anti-abortion flyer in my mailbox.” In Saskatoon, an “Anti-abortion flyers warning” hit the forum. As one Ottawa shares, “I really don't want to see pictures of dead and dismembered babies every day on bank street.”
The law could give a roadmap to any state that wants to target a federal right, from gun ownership to free speech.
By Julia Kaye and Marc Hearron
July 19, 2021
This spring, the Texas legislature dropped the charade that its years-long campaign to shutter abortion clinics was ever about patient safety and simply banned abortion outright. Texas Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8) prohibits abortions beginning at approximately six weeks of pregnancy — before many people even realize they are pregnant. Our organizations, along with Planned Parenthood Federation of America and other partners, have sued to block S.B. 8 on behalf of a coalition of Texas abortion clinics, doctors, health center staff, abortion funds, practical support networks and clergy, because the law will cause profound harm to Texans and is plainly unconstitutional.
But even those opposed to abortion should be alarmed by this law, which could draw a road map for states and localities looking to dismantle constitutional rights with impunity.
Anti-choice men are loud and clear on this issue, so it's time pro-choice men step up and make some noise.
July 19, 2021
My grandfather was one of the ten percent of Polish Jews to survive World War II. As a Jew, I understand in my bones the dehumanizing impact of a government controlling the most fundamental aspects of your life, and that understanding fuels my work as an advocate for reproductive freedom and justice.
Amid the ongoing, decades-long assault on abortion access in this country, with more than 500 new bills proposed across the country this year alone to further restrict, ban, and criminalize abortion, we often focus on the potential impact of these measures but not their cause. The truth is that people responsible for this grim reality are overwhelmingly anti-choice men in Congress and state legislatures, who have used their power in elected office to rob pregnant people of the ability to make their own reproductive decisions.
Aborting a fetus with Down’s syndrome says nothing about how society views disabled people. It is a matter of choice.
ANN FUREDI, Spiked
9th July 2021
Heidi Carter is a talented and able young woman. She also has Down’s syndrome. This week she launched a legal challenge which, if successful, would lower the time limit for abortions when there is a high risk of serious disability. Carter believes that it is morally wrong for any woman to decide to end her pregnancy to avoid the birth of a child with disabilities or genetic conditions.
In 2020, almost 300 women who had abortions stated Down’s syndrome as the primary reason. For these women, and for others where a serious fetal anomaly is indicated, there is no time limit. Heidi Carter believes this is offensive to people with disabilities – and she is entitled to hold that view. As a person with a disability she has insight into what it feels like to have that disability. But it gives her no authority to stand in judgement on pregnant women’s decisions.
Heidi Carter's attempt to change the Abortion Act threatens women's reproductive rights.
Ella Whelan, Spiked
7th July 2021
Heidi Carter is a 24-year-old woman with Down’s syndrome. She is currently taking the UK health secretary Sajid Javid to court in an effort to change the 1967 Abortion Act.
Carter and her team want to take away the option women currently have to abort a pregnancy after 24 weeks in cases of non-fatal disabilities. Her supporters are framing this as a battle for the rights of disabled people. This is misleading. It should be understood as an attempt to limit the choice and freedoms of 34million women.
Why should women’s lives and health be at the mercy of the next election
Dr. Warren M. Hern
Jul 5, 2021
Every day, we wake up in the morning and read about ourselves in the paper, or at least, about what we are doing – abortions for women who need them.
We have the bizarre and malignant law in Texas signed by the governor with Trump-style flourishes that makes abortion in that state illegal even before a woman knows that she’s pregnant. It makes everyone with a mean desire to control other people’s lives eligible to make a legal living hell for anyone who even thinks about helping a woman with her personal health care.
Monday July 05 2021
In recent weeks the Scottish government published its analysis of responses to its public consultation on the continued use of telemedicine for abortion services. It concluded that it would consider the responses, along with further evidence, before making any decision.
Last week this decision came under fire from the Catholic Media Office. As a starting point, it is important to note that public consultations on healthcare procedures are exceptionally rare. It says a lot about the lack of value and trust, placed by society on women and their health, that the public at large should have any say in medical procedures. There are few, if any, other subjects where scientific advances are seen with such fear and inaction than women’s health.
July 2, 2021
By Claire Pierson, University of Liverpool
Liza Caruana-Finkel, University of Liverpool and The Conversation
If accessing abortion in countries where it’s
criminalised wasn’t hard enough before the pandemic, lockdowns and COVID-19
travel restrictions have made the process that much more difficult.
In fact, the issue became so pronounced at the start of the pandemic that the
European parliament and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights
called on member states to guarantee safe and timely access to abortion.
1 JULY 2021
By Tijani Salami
A year ago, I met a 26-year-old breastfeeding mother who was a graduate student. She was married with three children; the youngest was just eight months old. She started using oral contraceptives after the return of her menses following the birth, but she hid the pills from her husband. When he discovered them, he forced her to throw them away.
Not long after that, she conceived again. Three months later, she had a miscarriage caused by stress. She was admitted into hospital with infection and blood loss. Thankfully, she survived, and her husband has since changed his attitude towards contraceptive use.