5 Abortion Providers on How Bans Are Putting People's Lives in Danger
“All of a sudden, we have to say, ‘I would do this in a heartbeat if I could—but I can’t.’”

By Reina Sultan
August 5, 2022

Abortion is now banned in 10 states, severely limited in another four, and threatened in about half of the country, in total. In states where exceptions may be made in cases of rape or incest, or for the sake of a patient’s life or well-being, guidelines are vague about what kind of abortion or abortion-adjacent care is still legal. This has left providers to decipher the unclear exception rules—and contend with the potential for prosecution, should they guess wrong. Abortion funds and practical support organizations have mobilized to provide resources to abortion seekers however they can.  But, of course, they’re unable to offer many of the crucial in-person abortion services that so many patients continue to seek.

Continued: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3addmv/abortion-providers-on-bans-after-roe-overturned-interview

USA – Our Father Was An Abortion Doctor Before And After Roe. Here’s What We Learned From Him.

"He would tell us about conservative public figures who would thank him because he’d discreetly helped them."

By Daniel Glick
Jun 27, 2022

Our father was an obstetrician/gynecologist. Over the course of his career, he delivered countless babies, performed surgeries and counseled families. He also provided abortions. Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, he treated women with perforated uteruses, septic shock, hemorrhages and other tragic consequences of illegal abortions and “back-alley” procedures, many of them performed by unsanitary, untrained hands.

Continued: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eugene-glick-abortion-doctor-father_n_62b8c8f1e4b0cdccbe6d569d

Why I’m becoming an abortion provider now

Chris Ahlbach
October 24, 2020

With the vacancy on the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade currently faces the biggest threat in our lifetime. Although Roe was insufficient in securing access to abortion for many people in the US, its repeal would catapult us into an era where one of the safest and most common medical procedures known becomes illegal in many states. For decades, abortion has occupied a politicized space in American medicine, leading to this impending crisis of millions of people losing access to this health service. No matter what happens with Roe, I choose to advocate to expand access to health care, including abortion, and call on my fellow health care providers to join me in this moral work.

Continued: https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/why-im-becoming-an-abortion-provider-now/

Abortion is Healthcare: 28 Providers


Abortion is Healthcare: 28 Providers

A newsletter from the International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion, featuring the stories of 28 abortion providers, in honour of September 28.

Continued: https://mailchi.mp/safeabortionwomensright/abortion-is-healthcare-28-providers-for-international-safe-abortion-day?e=372dd34034

Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick is the owner and medical director of Camelback Family Planning,

An Open Letter to Doctors – Safe Abortion Is In Your Hands Now, Are You Ready to Step Up?

Posted on July 30, 2018

Roe v. Wade is in immediate jeopardy and we are now staring into the face of a country without legal abortion, and regardless of where you stand on the issue it is imperative that you understand that it is you who are now in professional jeopardy. As an abortion provider from Arizona, a state with some of the most conservative abortion laws in the nation, let me tell you what you can expect if abortion becomes illegal either in your state, or across the nation as a whole.

Expect every medical decision to be questioned. Do you have a patient who needs a D&C to finalize a missed miscarriage? Misoprostol to expel the remains of an embryo? It is not unreasonable to expect that your files will be subject to scrutiny if all abortion is banned.

Continued: https://drgabriellegoodrick.com/2018/07/30/an-open-letter-to-doctors-safe-abortion-is-in-your-hands-now-are-you-ready-to-step-up/

USA – I helped women get abortions for 28 years — through protests and shifting rules

I helped women get abortions for 28 years — through protests and shifting rules

By Joan Finn-McCracken
May 25, 2018
Joan Finn-McCracken is a former teacher and nurse practitioner. She was a director of Planned Parenthood clinics for 32 years.

One of the first patients who came to our family-planning clinic in Billings, Mont., newly opened in 1969, sought help after she and her boyfriend had hitchhiked 500 miles from Billings to Colorado to terminate a pregnancy. Colorado was one of the five states where abortions could be legally obtained. They had heard about Colorado through his older sister, and were able to borrow enough money for the procedure but not enough for a bus ticket. She was 17, unmarried and so desperate to return home before anyone missed her that she did not stay for her follow-up appointment. Now she came to us for follow-up care, as well as birth control.

Although I was the mother of five children and a graduate of the Duke University School of Nursing, and had taught in two nursing schools, I knew little about abortion. Our patient was afraid to go to her family doctor because she was not sure what was legal or illegal. And neither was I. But I did know we could not prescribe her birth control — it was against the law for anyone under 18.

Continued: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-helped-women-get-abortions-for-28-years--through-protests-and-shifting-rules/2018/05/25/4f680826-5eb8-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html

Improving women’s health worldwide

Improving women’s health worldwide
Professor Lesley Regan
23rd April 2017

Sharing skills across borders is an important part of making a practical difference to improving women’s lives. I have always been a great supporter of global health programmes where young trainee doctors choose to spend a period of time in a host country to share their knowledge and skills and in turn benefit from the lessons gained from the people already working on the ground. It is definitely a two way learning process and our trainees gain hugely from the experience.

Continued at source: Hippocratic Post: https://www.hippocraticpost.com/events/improving-womens-health-worldwide/

U.S.: 41 Things You Should Know About Abortions And The Doctors Who Perform Them

41 Things You Should Know About Abortions And The Doctors Who Perform Them

"I'm in a constant battle to help women and it can get exhausting sometimes, but the good days outweigh the bad ones."

Posted on April 19, 2017
Caroline Kee, BuzzFeed News Reporter

Forty-four years ago, the US Supreme Court affirmed a woman's legal right to have an abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision. Today, abortion access is still being fought over in many states — but while you hear all the time from activists on both sides, the doctors who perform these procedures are often left out of the conversation.

BuzzFeed Health reached out to abortion providers across the country to find out what they wish people understood about the job, the procedure, and the women they treat. We heard from physicians who practice in conservative Southern states, liberal coastal cities, the rural Midwest, and in between. The following is a selection of perspectives and anecdotes from 11 physicians (some of whom asked to remain anonymous) that illustrate their day-to-day and the current landscape of abortion care in the US.

Continued at source: Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolinekee/41-things-abortion-providers-want-you-to-know?utm_term=.pu2LJ7YDp#.ctvGZnb4r

FEATURE: Complaints regarding Discrimination in Abortion Provision in Italy Upheld

Resolution by the Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe, on abortion-related discrimination

The Committee of Ministers is the decision-making body of the Council of Europe. It is comprised of the Foreign Ministers of the 47 member states. Several years ago, two complaints were tabled with the Committee of Ministers under the European Social Charter, which provides a basis for making "collective complaints". The complaints were about discrimination against women in Italy seeking legal abortions and discrimination against medical practitioners in Italy who are providing abortions. One was tabled by the International Planned Parenthood Federation Europe Region and the other by the Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL, General Confederation of Workers of Italy).

On 6 July 2016, following a hearing in May, the Committee of Ministers adopted several resolutions relating to these complaints. The Committee found that:

a) the shortcomings which exist in the provision of abortion services in Italy remain unremedied and women seeking access to abortion services continue to face substantial difficulties in obtaining access to such services in practice, notwithstanding the provisions of the relevant legislation;

b) health care establishments have still not adopted the necessary measures in order to compensate for the deficiencies in service provision caused by health personnel who decide to invoke their right of conscientious objection, or the measures adopted are inadequate;

Furthermore, women wishing to seek an abortion may still be forced to attend other health facilities, in Italy or abroad, or to terminate their pregnancies without the support or control of the competent health authorities, or may be deterred from accessing abortion services which they have a legal entitlement to receive in line with the provisions of Act No.194/1978, which legalised abortion under certain conditions. This is contrary to the right to the protection of health as guaranteed by Article 11 of the European Social Charter.

The Committee also finds that the public authorities in Italy are failing to ensure an efficient organisation of the services providing access to abortion, taking into account the right to conscientious objection. As a result, many women are deprived of effective access to abortion services. Pregnant women seeking to access abortion services are treated differently depending on the area in which they live. In addition, the differential treatment on this basis may, by extension, have an adverse impact on women in lower income groups, who may be less able to travel to other parts of Italy or abroad in order to access abortion services.

The resolution states that there is no public health or public policy justification for this difference in treatment. It arises solely due to the inadequate implementation of Act No. 194/1978. Therefore the difference in treatment amounts to discrimination and constitutes a violation of Article E in conjunction with Article 11 of the European Social Charter.

The Committee also finds that there is a violation of Article 1 § 2 of the Charter on the grounds of the difference in treatment with regard to protection at work between medical practitioners claiming conscientious objection to doing abortions and those who do not object. The Committee says that the CGIL has provided a wide range of evidence demonstrating that non-objecting medical practitioners face several types of cumulative disadvantages at work, both direct and indirect, in terms of workload, distribution of tasks, career development opportunities, and more.

The government was asked “to take steps to establish a technical monitoring board so as to verify that Act No. 194/1978 is being fully and correctly implemented, with the aim of preventing any form of discrimination between objecting and non-objecting health care staff, also through modified management and mobility of staff guaranteeing the existence of an adequate services network in each region.

They note the numerous direct testimonies that had been provided by the CGIL, which demonstrate a lack of career opportunities, including promotion, for non-objecting medical practitioners, excessive workload and aggravated working conditions. The Italian government, the Committee says, has provided virtually no evidence contradicting that evidence. Nor has the government demonstrated that discrimination is not widespread.

The differences in treatment and the disadvantages suffered by non-objecting personnel arises, the Committee says, simply on the basis that certain medical practitioners provide abortion services in accordance with the law. There is no reasonable or objective reason for this difference in treatment, which amounts to discrimination in violation of Article 1 § 2 of the Charter.

Complaints about differentials in average working time and effects on health between health professionals objecting to doing abortions and those who do not object were not upheld due to lack of sufficient evidence.

However, the Committee notes examples provided of the moral harassment of non-objecting medical practitioners, including direct testimonies, such as intense verbal pressure to stop providing abortion services. The Committee says that the government does not refute the allegations of moral harassment in any way. The statements by non-objecting medical practitioners alleging moral harassment are insufficient in themselves to ground a violation of the Charter, because they are largely anecdotal.

However, the Committee said that the Charter imposes positive obligations on States Parties to take preventive action to ensure moral harassment does not occur, in particular in situations where harassment is likely. The failure of the government to take any preventive action, training or awareness-raising measures to ensure the protection of non-objecting medical practitioners, it says, amounts to a violation of Article 26 § 2 of the Charter.
Source: International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion
FULL TEXT (English): https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680687bdc
FULL TEXT (Français): https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680687bdd

Information about the Council of Ministers + Photo