NOVEMBER 20, 2020
With the Supreme Court taking a new direction with the addition of Amy Coney Barrett, many are concerned about Roe v. Wade and what will happen to abortion access. But in several states across the U.S., abortion is already largely inaccessible even if it’s technically legal. That’s become even more true during the pandemic, as many providers have had to completely shut down or haven’t had the workers to make carrying out abortions possible. In South Dakota, abortions have been entirely inaccessible in the state since March when the Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls halted all procedures.
More Patients Seek Abortion Pills Online During Pandemic, But Face Restrictions
May 28, 2020
Even before the coronavirus crisis, there were lots of abortion restrictions in South Dakota. But now the procedure has become unavailable, officials say.
"I called to make the appointment and they said the Sioux Falls location was closed [for abortions] because of the coronavirus," said 34-year-old Heather. NPR agreed not to use her last name because she doesn't want people in her largely conservative community to know about her abortion.
If ‘Roe v. Wade’ Goes, Women May Have to Drive Hours for Abortions. It’s Already Happening in North Dakota
One in five women in North Dakota travels more than 280 miles to get an abortion. That drive could become longer if ‘Roe v. Wade’ is repealed.
Torey Van Oot
Holly Alvarado was 22 and just weeks from deployment in the U.S. military when she realized she was pregnant. She knew she wasn’t in a place emotionally or financially to have a child. She called a Planned Parenthood and asked how—and where—she could get an abortion.
At the time, Alvarado was stationed in Grand Forks, North Dakota, a city on the Minnesota border just 90 miles south of the Canadian border. The sole abortion clinic in the state, a two hour drive from her home, wasn’t able to see her before her departure. The next closest provider was more than four hours away in Minnesota.
Many Abortion Restrictions Have No Rigorous Scientific Basis
May 9, 2017, News Release
Texas and Kansas Stand Out as the States with the Largest Number of Scientifically Unfounded Restrictions
At least 10 major categories of abortion restrictions are premised on assertions not supported by rigorous scientific evidence, according to a new analysis in the Guttmacher Policy Review. These restrictions include unnecessary regulations on abortion facilities and providers, counseling and waiting period requirements rooted in misinformation, and laws based on false assertions about when fetuses can feel pain.
The authors, Guttmacher Institute experts Rachel Benson Gold and Elizabeth Nash, document that over half of U.S. women of reproductive age live in states where abortion restrictions are in effect that have either moderate or major conflicts with the science. The worst offenders are Kansas and Texas (with laws in effect in eight out of the 10 categories) and Louisiana, Oklahoma and South Dakota (seven such laws each). A table with information for all states is included in the full analysis.
Continued at link: Guttmacher Institute: https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/many-abortion-restrictions-have-no-rigorous-scientific-basis
Illustration by Eleanor Doughty
by Callie Beusman
(Additional reporting by Leila Ettachfini)
Aug 18 2016, Broadly
In 26 states, abortion providers are required to carry "informed consent" brochures devised by conservative politicians, who say they're simply trying to help women make a difficult decision. But others say they're forcing doctors to give inaccurate and misleading information to their patients—with the intent of discouraging them from abortion.
When she worked at an abortion clinic in South Dakota, Dr. Diane Horvath-Cosper was legally required to tell prospective patients that there was a chance that abortion would increase their risk of breast cancer and suicide.
Immediately afterwards, she'd tell them that neither of those statements had any actual basis in medical science. "What I would say was, 'The state requires me to give you this information. We have excellent medical evidence to say that it's actually not true, but I'm required to tell you this,'" she recalls.
[continued at link]