[RD] Abortion, once again

US doctor faces hearing over story of 10-year-old's abortion​

A US doctor who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old is facing a disciplinary hearing after speaking to media about the case.
Indiana officials say Dr Caitlin Bernard violated her patient's privacy after she spoke publicly about the girl's treatment.
Her lawyers argue she was acting on her duty to inform the public about the impact of policies like abortion bans.
It is not immediately clear what punishment she might face.

In July 2022, a month after a US Supreme Court ruling ended the nationwide guarantee to an abortion, the Indianapolis Star published a story detailing Dr Bernard's account of treating a 10-year-old rape survivor. The child had travelled from neighbouring Ohio to Indiana to receive an abortion.
At the time, Ohio law prohibited abortion after six weeks of gestation.

The case of the 10-year-old, who was a victim of child abuse, being denied an abortion quickly gained national attention. Pro-choice advocates - including President Joe Biden - used the case as an example of the impact of restrictive abortion bans.
Later that month, an Ohio man was charged with raping the 10-year-old girl, who has remained unnamed.
Last November, the Indiana State Attorney General's office filed a complaint alleging that Dr Bernard failed to immediately report the abuse of the child, as required by state law, and to protect patient privacy.
She testified that she followed her hospital's policy by reporting the patient's abuse to a social worker.
"As a physician my role is to provide care for the patient no matter how she winds up in my care, it is not my job to investigate the crime," she said.
A hearing before the state Medical and Licensing Board is being held on Thursday.

During the hearing, state officials sought to portray Dr Bernard as an "abortion activist" who shared details about the procedure with the media without first requesting permission from the child's family.
"Trust was violated when (Bernard) sought to further her own agenda," said Deputy Attorney General Cory Voight of the accusations facing the physician. He said if the board agreed with the state's complaint, Dr Bernard "has become unfit to practice".
Dr Bernard was at times emotional in her testimony as she discussed treating other underage patients who were victims of abuse and had sought abortions.
She said she did not violate her patient's privacy, or release protected health information in discussing the case with the Indianapolis Star.
"I think that it's incredibly important for people to understand the real-world impacts of the laws in this country, about abortion or otherwise," Dr Bernard said. "I think that it's important for people to know what patients will have to go through because of legislation that's being passed."
At the conclusion of the hearing, members of the medical board are expected to vote on whether Dr Bernard's conduct merits disciplinary action. Indiana's state medical licencing board has the ability to suspend or revoke a medical licence or place the physician on probation.

The attorney general's initial complaint requests "appropriate disciplinary action" but stops short of demanding specific punishment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65714672
 
i know it's kind of irrelevant since the hearing is illegitimate (this hearing is only meant to crack down on abortion regardless of its nature), but isn't doctor-patient confidentiality kept up here? we don't know the name of the patient, nor do we have access to the patient's health information. doctors are allowed to talk about patients without personal details this way, no? tried googling both, and no dice.

i'm bringing it up because it determines the judical legitimacy of the illegitimate hearing, if that makes sense. she's said nothing she's not allowed to say, right? or are the laws different in ohio/whatever? i'm used to danish law here.
 
It is, yes. As with everything to do with the right wing American push against reproductive autonomy, it's all just using whatever flimsy pretexts are at hand to suppress access and normalise that ever reducing access. Whether it's a phony hearing like this treating any discussion of abortion as some big ethics offence, or arguing that using abortion app surveillance to oppress people is no big deal because hypothetically some other type of surveillance could also exist.

Also if push comes to shove I bet the patient would also just say they're fine with it and they waive the confidentiality enough for the doctor to discuss their case.
 
Last edited:
alright.

it's actually disgusting to see that they're trying to spin a rape case of a ten year old into the doctor being heinous. i mean i understand the attempt at rhetorical misdirection; it's all they've got, and it may work. it's just, yea. disgusting.
 
That's another thing - the facts of the situation are shocking. They have the potential to jolt public opinion and to mobilise political opposition among "middle of the ground" types who think abortion is maybe bad but don't think about it much unless confronted, and aren't gung ho about the intricacies of the torture which abortion bans inflict.

We've seen how particularly shocking cases caused constitutional change regarding abortion in Ireland, a compelling example can work wonders. The shocking cases therefore need to be deflected and distracted from by any means necessary. Exemplary punishments with a broader chilling effect on discourse are perfect for this.
 
this is one of the reasons the "chip in vaccine" conspiracy was so absurd. companies didn't need such an expensive investment into tech that probably doesn't exist at scale yet + pr nightmare. they've had all the info they'd get from that already and then some, for years.
This was generally my reply to friends, relatives, people encountered in conversation who brought up the infamous "Bill Gates Covid chip" like something out of the plot from the NETFLIX series Utopia.

I'd ask them what the chip was supposed to do... to which they would inevitably state that it was going to "track them", meaning their movements and travel and/or "make/influence them to buy stuff"... it amazed me how many times, when I would point out to them that there was no need for any such chip, because their cellphone (computer/laptop/ipad) already did exactly that... people would say that fact never occurred to them.
 
i know it's kind of irrelevant since the hearing is illegitimate (this hearing is only meant to crack down on abortion regardless of its nature), but isn't doctor-patient confidentiality kept up here? we don't know the name of the patient, nor do we have access to the patient's health information. doctors are allowed to talk about patients without personal details this way, no? tried googling both, and no dice.

i'm bringing it up because it determines the judical legitimacy of the illegitimate hearing, if that makes sense. she's said nothing she's not allowed to say, right? or are the laws different in ohio/whatever? i'm used to danish law here.
I can explain HIPAA (a USA-only Law), colloquially at least. Here's a link to the US Government's website on it for more detail.

Essentially, neither your doctor nor your insurance company, or anyone they have contracted with (like a separate billing company) can disclose 1) details of your condition along with any items 2) that might specifically identify you. Those last two clauses are important & are taken together. Like, if I was a doctor (I am not, but work in the US health care industry), I could say "I treated a 10-year old rape victim" much like I could say "I treated 10 people with broken arms" but what I could not do is provide any identifying information, like name (obviously), specific location (as in address, but state is OK), date of birth ("a 10-year old" doesn't fall under this), & definitely not your Member ID/Social Security Number.

Basically, nothing that could be used to specifically identify who I was talking about. But I can say I treated people with certain conditions.

Where people often get confused on this is that it doesn't apply to anyone else. If you & I are co-workers, I can tell everybody about your health conditions with no (legal) penalties (social penalties, sure - you probably hate me now). The parents of a minor child (generally, like 95% of the time - the link contains exceptions) can freely tell anyone they want without the child's permission. Also, I, as a private citizen, can ask you anything I want about your health conditions. It's rude, & you don't have to answer, but not illegal for me to ask. If you request from your best fried "don't tell my parents" & they do, or even tell the news, they did not violate HIPAA, because it doesn't apply to them.

Finally, it should be pointed out that all this can be waived by the patient. If I waive my rights under HIPAA (in writing), they can then disclose any details about me to the parties I specified. This generally only happens in very specific cases, like "you, my Doctor, can tell my parents/spouse/siblings".

Sidenote: oddly (& this a loophole I wish they'd close) if you waive your right to disclose to your HR department at work (so you can get leave, disability, or whatever), they are not bound by HIPAA. I mean, it's not like they are likely to go around telling everybody & they generally have their own rules about stuff like that, but they are not bound by the HIPAA law.
 
Two year prison term for woman who had abortion past age limit

Campaigners and MPs have reacted with outrage to a woman being sentenced to more than two years in prison for procuring drugs to induce an abortion after the legal limit.

The mother of three received the medication under the “pills by post” scheme, which was introduced during the Covid pandemic for unwanted pregnancies up to 10 weeks, after a remote consultation.

Prosecutors said the woman had knowingly misled the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) by saying she was below the 10-week cut-off, when she believed she was about 28 weeks pregnant.

Doctors later concluded the foetus was from 32 to 34 weeks’ gestation (between seven and eight months) at the time of termination. In England, Scotland and Wales, abortion is generally legal up to 24 weeks but is carried out in a hospital or clinic after 10 weeks.

The woman, 44, pleaded guilty in March under the Offences against the Person Act, legislation that dates back to 1861, and will serve half of her 28-month sentence in custody and the remaining under licence. Originally, she had pleaded not guilty to a charge of an offence of child destruction.

The number of women and girls facing police investigations and the threat of life imprisonment under current abortion laws has risen over the past three years, according to BPAS. In 2022, a woman who used abortion medication in a failed attempt to end her own pregnancy was reported to the police by her medical team.

Stoke-on-Trent crown court heard how the woman discovered she was pregnant in December 2019 before arranging a telephone consultation with BPAS in May 2020.

She took the medication at home, and was later admitted to hospital after calling emergency services. Police were called to her bedside by hospital staff. The prosecution said the woman told police in an interview that she had lied to BPAS about how far along her pregnancy was to obtain the pills.

The court also heard that the woman had made Google searches, including: “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks” and “Could I go to jail for aborting my baby at 30 weeks.”

There was no sign the foetus took an independent breath, according to the coroner’s report.

The judge said there were no sentencing guidelines for the offence, but that the maximum sentence was life imprisonment.

The defence, Barry White, said the woman needed “family and support” rather than a jail term.

A mitigation plea was sent to the judge in April 2023 signed by groups including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives. “We plead to Your Honour to consider leniency in this case … we are fearful that if the case before you receives a custodial sentence it may signal to other women who access tele-medical abortion services, or who experience later gestation deliveries, that they risk imprisonment if they seek medical care,” it said.

After the sentencing, Clare Murphy, the chief executive of BPAS, said she was “shocked and appalled” by the custodial sentence, adding: “In their sentencing remarks, the judge made it clear that women will only be protected from prosecution if MPs bring forward legal change. There has never been a clearer mandate for parliamentary action, and the need has never been so urgent.

Mandu Reid, the leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “I am devastated for the woman at the centre of this case, and for her children, who have been forcibly separated from their mum …

“This conviction serves no one, not her, not her children, not the public interest. All it does is punish a woman for seeking healthcare in the middle of a pandemic and risk deterring women who want or need an abortion from seeking that care in future. No one deserves to be criminalised for seeking healthcare, which is a human right.”

The Labour MP Stella Creasy said: “It is an hangover from another era that our abortion laws are based not on healthcare considerations, but first and foremost criminal sanctions.
 
I think this is the appropriate thread:

Synthetic human embryos created in groundbreaking advance

Scientists have created synthetic human embryos using stem cells, in a groundbreaking advance that sidesteps the need for eggs or sperm.

Prof Magdalena Żernicka-Goetz, of the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology, described the work in a plenary address on Wednesday at the International Society for Stem Cell Research’s annual meeting in Boston.

“We can create human embryo-like models by the reprogramming of [embryonic stem] cells,” she told the meeting.

The structures do not have a beating heart or the beginnings of a brain, but include cells that would typically go on to form the placenta, yolk sac and the embryo itself.

Previously, Żernicka-Goetz’s team and a rival group at the Weizmann Institute in Israel showed that stem cells from mice could be encouraged to self-assemble into early embryo-like structures with an intestinal tract, the beginnings of a brain and a beating heart. Since then, a race has been under way to translate this work into human models, and several teams have been able to replicate the very earliest stages of development.

The full details of the latest work, from the Cambridge-Caltech lab, are yet to be published in a journal paper. But, speaking at the conference, Żernicka-Goetz described cultivating the embryos to a stage just beyond the equivalent of 14 days of development for a natural embryo.

The model structures, each grown from a single embryonic stem cell, reached the beginning of a developmental milestone known as gastrulation, when the embryo transforms from being a continuous sheet of cells to forming distinct cell lines and setting up the basic axes of the body. At this stage, the embryo does not yet have a beating heart, gut or beginnings of a brain, but the model showed the presence of primordial cells that are the precursor cells of egg and sperm.

The development highlights how rapidly the science in this field has outpaced the law, and scientists in the UK and elsewhere are already moving to draw up voluntary guidelines to govern work on synthetic embryos. “If the whole intention is that these models are very much like normal embryos, then in a way they should be treated the same,” Lovell-Badge said. “Currently in legislation they’re not. People are worried about this.”

There is also a significant unanswered question on whether these structures, in theory, have the potential to grow into a living creature. The synthetic embryos grown from mouse cells were reported to appear almost identical to natural embryos. But when they were implanted into the wombs of female mice, they did not develop into live animals. In April, researchers in China created synthetic embryos from monkey cells and implanted them into the wombs of adult monkeys, a few of which showed the initial signs of pregnancy but none of which continued to develop beyond a few days. Scientists say it is not clear whether the barrier to more advanced development is merely technical or has a more fundamental biological cause.
 
Two year prison term for woman who had abortion past age limit

Campaigners and MPs have reacted with outrage to a woman being sentenced to more than two years in prison for procuring drugs to induce an abortion after the legal limit.

The mother of three received the medication under the “pills by post” scheme, which was introduced during the Covid pandemic for unwanted pregnancies up to 10 weeks, after a remote consultation.

Prosecutors said the woman had knowingly misled the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) by saying she was below the 10-week cut-off, when she believed she was about 28 weeks pregnant.

Doctors later concluded the foetus was from 32 to 34 weeks’ gestation (between seven and eight months) at the time of termination. In England, Scotland and Wales, abortion is generally legal up to 24 weeks but is carried out in a hospital or clinic after 10 weeks.

The woman, 44, pleaded guilty in March under the Offences against the Person Act, legislation that dates back to 1861, and will serve half of her 28-month sentence in custody and the remaining under licence. Originally, she had pleaded not guilty to a charge of an offence of child destruction.

The number of women and girls facing police investigations and the threat of life imprisonment under current abortion laws has risen over the past three years, according to BPAS. In 2022, a woman who used abortion medication in a failed attempt to end her own pregnancy was reported to the police by her medical team.

Stoke-on-Trent crown court heard how the woman discovered she was pregnant in December 2019 before arranging a telephone consultation with BPAS in May 2020.

She took the medication at home, and was later admitted to hospital after calling emergency services. Police were called to her bedside by hospital staff. The prosecution said the woman told police in an interview that she had lied to BPAS about how far along her pregnancy was to obtain the pills.

The court also heard that the woman had made Google searches, including: “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks” and “Could I go to jail for aborting my baby at 30 weeks.”

There was no sign the foetus took an independent breath, according to the coroner’s report.

The judge said there were no sentencing guidelines for the offence, but that the maximum sentence was life imprisonment.

The defence, Barry White, said the woman needed “family and support” rather than a jail term.

A mitigation plea was sent to the judge in April 2023 signed by groups including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives. “We plead to Your Honour to consider leniency in this case … we are fearful that if the case before you receives a custodial sentence it may signal to other women who access tele-medical abortion services, or who experience later gestation deliveries, that they risk imprisonment if they seek medical care,” it said.

After the sentencing, Clare Murphy, the chief executive of BPAS, said she was “shocked and appalled” by the custodial sentence, adding: “In their sentencing remarks, the judge made it clear that women will only be protected from prosecution if MPs bring forward legal change. There has never been a clearer mandate for parliamentary action, and the need has never been so urgent.

Mandu Reid, the leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “I am devastated for the woman at the centre of this case, and for her children, who have been forcibly separated from their mum …

“This conviction serves no one, not her, not her children, not the public interest. All it does is punish a woman for seeking healthcare in the middle of a pandemic and risk deterring women who want or need an abortion from seeking that care in future. No one deserves to be criminalised for seeking healthcare, which is a human right.”

The Labour MP Stella Creasy said: “It is an hangover from another era that our abortion laws are based not on healthcare considerations, but first and foremost criminal sanctions.
This is of course one is the big problems with the wink wink nudge nudge common law approach to reproductive freedom. That is, one where instead of just clearly and cleanly decrimininalising and fully legalising by legislative action, you just kinda allow common law and de facto practice to drift into a state where things are mostly allowed but severe criminal penalties still exist.

It's also an example of how access restrictions force abortions later into term than would otherwise occur. 2020 covid lockdown and the requirements to jump through doctor hoops delayed her access in this case.
 
i know it's kind of irrelevant since the hearing is illegitimate (this hearing is only meant to crack down on abortion regardless of its nature), but isn't doctor-patient confidentiality kept up here? we don't know the name of the patient, nor do we have access to the patient's health information. doctors are allowed to talk about patients without personal details this way, no? tried googling both, and no dice.

Essentially, neither your doctor nor your insurance company, or anyone they have contracted with (like a separate billing company) can disclose 1) details of your condition along with any items 2) that might specifically identify you. Those last two clauses are important & are taken together. Like, if I was a doctor (I am not, but work in the US health care industry), I could say "I treated a 10-year old rape victim" much like I could say "I treated 10 people with broken arms" but what I could not do is provide any identifying information, like name (obviously), specific location (as in address, but state is OK), date of birth ("a 10-year old" doesn't fall under this), & definitely not your Member ID/Social Security Number.
age > 89 is seen as potentially identifying information, at least in some states. 10 years old doesn't fall into that category, but the combination of "10 years old", "pregnant" and "seen by this physician" does seem like it violates at least the spirit of hipaa since this is enough information to be likely to narrow down who the patient is...and now you have public discussion of a medical procedure being given to a a known 10 year old.

if a physician gives some general trends on how policy impacts abuse victims, that's not going to violate hipaa. however, if you talk about the treatment used on a *specific* patient with sufficiently unusual circumstances, that does seem like it runs afoul of hipaa.

i don't know exactly what this physician said though. imo it comes down to whether what was given to media would allow a lay person to identify the person + pin down which treatments were used on that patient. imo, that does violate the patient's privacy if it happens.
 

She was denied an abortion in Texas - then she almost died​

A Texas law that bans all abortions - except in dire medical circumstances - is one of the strictest introduced since the right to the procedure was overturned. Critics say it is forcing many women, and their doctors, to choose between breaking the law and making the right decision for their health.
Amanda Zurawski and her husband Josh had recently bought their dream home. Located in one of the most sought-after areas of Austin, Texas, it had scenic views of a lake and a golf course. With their first child on the way, it was perfect for their growing family.
But their moving day last August was not at all what they had envisioned. Amanda had just been released from the hospital after her life was put at risk when she was denied an abortion.
"It felt like I was living in a dystopian world," Amanda told the BBC. "In the United States, as a pregnant person, you should not be afraid of your life because of the laws."

In the year since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, giving states the right to ban abortion, 13 states have passed near total bans. Texas is the largest, and one of the strictest, banning all abortions from the moment of conception, except in cases of a "life-threatening physical condition" or "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function". Breaking the law can carry a $100,000 (£78,000) fine and up to life in prison.
When Amanda learned she was having a daughter, she and her husband were overjoyed. But on the same day that she compiled the guest list for her baby shower, she was diagnosed with a condition that led to not only the loss of her child, but put her in the crosshairs of Texas's abortion ban.

Doctors told her she had cervical insufficiency, which is a weakening of the cervical tissue that causes premature dilation, and that her unborn daughter would not survive. She and her husband were devastated.
"She was a baby that we desperately, desperately wanted," she said.

A standard course of medical treatment for an unviable pregnancy at that stage of development is to terminate, and extract the foetus. Waiting to miscarry naturally can put the mother at risk for infection, which can prove fatal.
But doctors told her they couldn't terminate her pregnancy, as under the state's laws, it was a crime to perform an abortion when there was a foetal heartbeat, unless the mother's life was threatened. Essentially, the message was that she was not sick enough yet to legally justify an abortion.
Three days later, Amanda developed a life-threatening infection and went into septic shock.
"My teeth were chattering uncontrollably, I couldn't put together a sentence," she said. "Imagine when you have the worst flu you've ever had in your entire life, it was that times one thousand; it was awful."

At the hospital, they induced labour and she miscarried her baby, whom she named Willow. She was then immediately sent to the intensive care unit, where she spent the next several days. The sepsis had caused scarring on her uterus and fallopian tubes, which led to one tube being permanently blocked.
It may make conceiving even harder for her in the future.
Amanda is now one of 13 women, and two doctors, who have decided to sue the state of Texas in the hope of changing the ban, to give doctors more leeway in determining when an abortion is necessary.
The state has asked the judge to dismiss the case. On Wednesday, Governor Greg Abbott signed legislation that clarifies that doctors are allowed to use their "reasonable medical judgment" to prevent serious complications caused by ectopic pregnancies or pre-viable premature rupture of membranes, which was the cause of Amanda's sepsis.
Anti-abortion advocates and politicians who support the ban say that the Texas laws were always written clearly, but the new legislation will help make it more explicit.
"If a doctor can foresee that a woman has sepsis that could end up being life-threatening, they can act immediately," said Rebecca Parma, who leads anti-abortion research and advocacy for Texas Right to Life.

She also said that now that abortion has been banned, her group intends to advocate for increased social services to women and the extension of Medicaid, or free health insurance, up to a year after childbirth, to ensure that women's maternal health is not neglected.
But the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is funding the lawsuit on behalf of the women and doctors, said there was no list long enough to encompass all cases where an abortion might be medically necessary.
Their position mirrors that of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which says each patient brings unique medical considerations to the table.
Dr Leah Tatum, a fellow of the organisation, who treats patients at Austin Regional Clinic, says the laws in Texas are written in such an ambiguous way that they cause stress and anxiety for medical providers across the state, who fear being charged with a crime for providing their patients with medical care.
"I'm coming at this from an objective medical standpoint," she said. "A pregnancy has more risk to the patient that is carrying the pregnancy than an early termination would."
"At what point by the law are they considering the patient's life at risk?"
Medicine is not black and white, she said, and cases that fall in the grey are more difficult to interpret within the law. While she is part of a big practice, with lawyers on hand to give advice, she worries for providers who don't have that same support system, particularly in rural areas.
"This is so different from how we were trained and what the national standard is for maternal care," said Dr Judy Levison, a Houston doctor who has been practising for four decades. But she's decided to stop seeing patients, partially because of these bans, and is now one of two doctors who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state.
She mostly saw low-income patients, and she felt she was being asked to practice medicine in an unethical way.
"Where were they going to get an abortion? How were they going to afford travelling, getting childcare, risking two days not working and risking their employment perhaps? I suddenly felt like my hands had been tied behind my back," she said.
And although the law, and the recent legislation clarifying the law, makes exceptions for when the mother's life is threatened, Texas does not allow abortions in the case of lethal foetal abnormalities, which are medical problems that make the foetus unlikely to survive upon birth.
Taylor Edwards, who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said that because there was no exception, she was forced to leave Texas for an abortion to terminate her unviable foetus.
"The emotional torture of those two weeks cannot be understated. I don't know how to explain to people how absolutely terrible it is knowing you're carrying around a baby that isn't going to live and you have to be very visibly pregnant," she said.
She is not the only one who has made the decision to leave the state to obtain an abortion. Many have had to travel hundreds of miles to Kansas or New Mexico, sometimes calling a dozen or more facilities to schedule their procedure, says Dr Kari White, of the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Austin.
"This was a really emotionally difficult experience for people, not because they were getting an abortion but because they were unsure whether or not they could get one," she told the BBC.

Like Amanda, Taylor also went through fertility treatments, spending tens of thousands of dollars to conceive, and found out in her second trimester that her daughter Phoebe would not survive.
At her 17-week anatomy scan this past February, the doctor saw the baby's brain matter herniating out of her skull, a condition known as encephalocele. Taylor recalled the moment when the doctor told her that the baby would not survive: "I just started screaming, I don't know what took over me."
She did not want to have to carry her daughter to term, only to give birth to a stillborn baby. But the cost and stress of having to leave the state took a psychological toll on her as well.
Three hours before she was due to fly to New Mexico, the clinic said they had run out of the necessary medication for the procedure. She eventually got an appointment later in Colorado, barely making their 19-week cut-off, after which they would no longer perform the procedure.
In total, the flights, hotel and abortion cost her $6,000 and was not covered by insurance, she said.
"You shouldn't have to deal with it when you're going through the worst experience of your life," she said.
"And then to be thrust into a situation where you're made to feel like a criminal is even worse."
As for Amanda, after losing Willow and moving into their home in Austin, she and her husband discovered that a tree outside of their new home was a desert willow. Every morning they say hello to it, feeling their daughter is close by. Along with the Edwardses, they have started another round of fertility treatment, hoping to have another child.
As the one-year anniversary of the fall of Roe v Wade draws near, both women say they are hopeful - but ready to fight.
"When I look back on the last year and everything that's happened to me personally but also in our political landscape, I see a lot of people mobilising," Mrs Zurawski said. "I've said before I don't think there's anything more powerful than a pissed-off mum and you got a lot of pissed-off mums right now."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65935189
 

She helped kill Roe v Wade - what does she want now?​

When Kristan Hawkins was 23, she started sleeping in her office.
It was years before her organisation, Students for Life of America (SFLA), would become one of the largest, most influential anti-abortion groups in the country. And it was more than a decade before she would stand outside the US Supreme Court to announce to her triumphant supporters that the nationwide right to abortion had been undone.
But back then, in 2008, the SFLA headquarters were in Arlington, Virginia, and the closest town where Hawkins and her husband could afford to buy a house was 90 minutes away.
At first, she tried the commute, leaving home at 5am and returning at 8pm. But the drives became too much, gas too expensive.

So she bought a cheap loveseat from Ikea, figuring she could put in 30 hours of work over two days before driving home for a night. She used a nearby Gold's Gym for showers, the new couch for naps. When Hawkins found the office was also inhabited by cockroaches, she bought an eye mask and started sleeping with the lights on to keep them away.
"It was terrible, terrible," her husband Jonathan said of that period, which was just two years into their marriage.

But Kristan Hawkins was relentless. And she had a job to do, she was going to see the end of Roe v Wade, overturning the national right to abortion that had been protected for nearly half a century.
Last June, she was successful. Pro-choice advocates say that her activism since then has already helped cut off abortion access for around 20 million women, and pushed the country into a public health crisis.
But Hawkins has a new, more ambitious goal: she wants to make abortion unthinkable and unavailable across the US.
In the year after Roe was overturned, Hawkins has gone into overdrive, growing the size and reach of SFLA and using that power to push state legislatures to pass increasingly severe bans.
"That's the momentum thing, right? Like, ok, all of America is watching, push the gas pedal down on everything, right now," she said. "More, more, more, more, more."
Hawkins, now 38, is bolder and more unyielding than her predecessors, reflective of a new generation of activists moving towards their ultimate goal: a federal abortion ban, beginning at conception.

"She's representative of the rightward shift in the movement… and how far the movement can go," said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, and a leading expert on the US abortion debate. "Kristan is really important to understanding what comes next."
Hawkins' plans are at odds with public opinion - a majority of Americans support access to legal abortion - and even some Republicans say she is going too far, too fast.
But Roe's reversal, too, was once considered a longshot. And now, one year after its demise, Hawkins believes she will lead the anti-abortion movement to another improbable win.

Most anti-abortion advocates have an origin story, a moment they say set them on a pro-life mission.
Kristan Hawkins' moment came when she was 15. At home in West Virginia, she started volunteering at a crisis pregnancy centre, the type of facility that dissuades women from having abortions by providing pro-life counselling, ultrasounds and material supplies like diapers and wipes.
Before she was allowed to start work, Hawkins had to learn what abortion was, to understand what it looked like. Someone at the clinic gave her a VHS tape of the Silent Scream, a controversial 1984 anti-abortion propaganda film that purported to show a foetus on ultrasound experiencing distress during an abortion at 12 weeks. The film, denounced as a fraud by abortion rights activists, runs counter to findings from leading scientists who say a foetus does not have the capacity to feel pain until at least 24 weeks gestation.

But Hawkins was horrified. She was also incredulous. In her view, she had just encountered the greatest human rights atrocity of our time: the routine killing of "preborn babies" - the term she uses to describe foetuses. So why wasn't everyone trying to stop it?
"I remember that first day at the pregnancy centre, walking out and saying 'Oh my God, how is life going on as normal when this is happening?'" she said during an interview in May. "That changed everything."
After a summer at the clinic, Hawkins started a community anti-abortion group called Teens for Life. She joined the local Right to Life chapter, she joined the local Republican chapter. "I was the youngest one there by like four decades," she said.
By 2006, after college graduation and short stints at the Republican National Committee and the Department of Health and Human Services, Hawkins was recruited to run Students for Life, then a fledgling organisation with groups on 180 campuses. She was 21.
Seventeen years later, Hawkins remains obsessive, prone to sending colleagues texts and emails at all hours. Her daily schedule, typed into her iPhone, is a nightmare, more than two dozen meetings and commitments blocked off in overlapping intervals. Her days are, occasionally, interrupted by calls from a health coach. "They're trying to get me to drink water," she said. "I always joke that Students for Life is built on Diet Mountain Dew."
She and Jonathan live in an RV with their four children so the entire family can join her on her frequent SFLA excursions. Jonathan, a former teacher, provides homeschooling.
"I just go with the flow, that's all you can do," Jonathan said during a family outing at the Pittsburgh Zoo last month.
"I think you're sick of the word abortion," Kristan said to him later that day. "When I say it sometimes, I swear I can see you twitch."
Watching her with followers and donors, Hawkins is sarcastic and often turns to humour, a sometimes unexpected habit from a woman pushing to outlaw abortion entirely. She also swears a lot and fidgets when she talks. She doesn't have friends, she said, "in the traditional sense".
"Like, I don't have girlfriends I go for brunch with… what would I talk about besides ending abortion?"
Hawkins' mission, born that day at the pregnancy centre, has proven to be all consuming, something she is well aware of. She has tried to teach her team the principle of DBW - Don't Be Weird - which is code for: don't freak people out.
"You have to know when to display your passion," she said. "If you carry around a pocketbook of graphic images of children who've been aborted and whip that out at the dinner table, some people are going to be pretty mad at you."

On a swampy June day in Washington, between clusters of teenagers on school trips and tour groups in matching t-shirts, six Students for Life members made their way to Capitol Hill, ready to lobby.
They all wore red, half in SFLA branded clothing - "The Pro-Life Generation VOTES" emblazoned on their chests like a cheery warning. One wore a pair of dangly earrings, tiny gold feet meant to match the size of a foetus's foot at 12 weeks. "It's a picture into their humanity," she said.
Groups like this can be found at state legislatures and on college campuses across the US on any given week. Under Hawkins, SFLA has grown into more than 1,400 campus groups in 50 states, overseen by 80 paid staff. Since 2006, more than 160,000 anti-abortion activists have completed SFLA training. Experts say Hawkins' particular power lies in her ability to get people to turn out - SFLA activists are now staples at anti-abortion demonstrations across the country.
"We launched SFLA to be this post-Roe generation," she said. "We were going to have that trained army."
And after Roe's reversal last year, that army has mobilised, helping to steer dozens of anti-abortion bills through state legislatures. So far, 13 Republican-controlled states have outlawed abortion. Bans in at least six other states are in limbo pending legal challenges.
Nearly one-third of American women of reproductive age now live in states where abortion is unavailable or severely restricted, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research group. Over the past year, stories have emerged about the apparent consequences of these bans - a 10-year-old rape victim denied an abortion in her home state of Ohio, 13 women in Texas who say they were denied abortions despite life-threatening pregnancy complications - further galvanising support for abortion access.
"What SFLA and other anti-abortion groups promote is the worst, most damaging, most criminalising policy," said Angela Vasquez-Giroux, vice-president at NARAL Pro-Choice America. "She [Kristan] is the embodiment of the extremeness of the movement."
"You're making it unsafe to be pregnant in the United States," she said.
But where the anti-abortion movement goes now that Roe has been overturned is a matter of debate.
Hawkins and most other leaders still share a unifying philosophy: a foetus is a rights-holding person. They share an objective too: a federal abortion ban. But there is disagreement on what that ban would look like and how, exactly, to get there.
"The movement is really fragmented," said University of California's Mary Ziegler. "There is no consensus."

SFLA has pushed what they call an "early abortion model", drafting and championing legislation that bans abortion at conception or, at the latest, after early cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks of pregnancy.
Hawkins' organisation, in other words, has abandoned the incrementalism that shaped earlier iterations of the anti-abortion movement, a strategy still favoured by some of SFLA's peers.
Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA) is one such group. A powerful and long-established presence in the anti-abortion lobby, SBA's leader Marjorie Dannenfelser has said she will oppose any presidential candidate who does not embrace a 15-week national ban, a benchmark supported by 44% of Americans, according to a recent poll.
That isn't good enough for Hawkins. Candidates must pledge support for a federal ban at six weeks if they want SFLA's support.
It's a tension Hawkins acknowledges. "Marjorie is the insider…and I'm the person who comes in and is like, '[Screw] it, we're just doing what we know is right'," Hawkins said, using an expletive. "We're not fighting."
Hawkins is also more outspoken, more outwardly conservative, on other abortion-related issues. She opposes exceptions for rape and incest. And she opposes several forms of birth control, including oral contraceptives, a position another anti-abortion leader privately called "unhelpful".
"What has changed is they are willing to say the quiet part out loud," said Elisabeth Smith, state policy director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-choice group. "They are willing to be publicly extreme."

Hawkins' uncompromising approach worries some Republicans, too. Politicians have been forced to choose between disappointing Hawkins and her allies and alienating a much more moderate electorate.
"Republicans are politically in a much more defensive position than the Democrats because they keep talking about restrictions that are not supported by most Americans," said John Feehery, a former Republican congressional aide.
A predicted red wave at the 2022 midterms seemed to collide with a surge of support for abortion rights, carrying Democrats to unexpected victories in a series of high-profile races. Last year, pro-choice voters swept all six abortion-related ballot measures, including in conservative states like Kansas and Kentucky.
"Women are watching Republicans post-Roe, and anything short of a compassionate strategy to win back suburban women and swing voters will severely set back the pro-life movement and the party as a whole," Nancy Mace, one of the few House Republicans who has publicly called for more flexibility on abortion, told the BBC in a statement.
But Hawkins does not see the Republican party as her problem. She has little patience for politicians she deems insufficiently pro-life, threatening primary challenges against Republicans who do not support early bans.
Merv Riepe, a Nebraska state senator who voted against a six-week ban this year, "is going to be retired pretty soon", Hawkins said.
The three female Republican senators in South Carolina who opposed an outright ban face the same threat. Two supported a six-week ban, but that was not sufficient for Hawkins. Each of them was sent a plastic infant-size spine from SFLA earlier this year, with a note suggesting they grow a backbone.
"I think that's the difference between us and other pro-life organisations," Hawkins said. "I don't really care if so-and-so in Washington, DC, isn't happy with me. It doesn't even earn me any points in my demographic."
That approach - aggressive, uncompromising - has fuelled her dominance among anti-abortion activists, now lurching to the right in the absence of Roe.
"The movement as a whole is moving towards asking for more extreme bans," said Zelly Martin, a researcher at University of Texas' propaganda lab, who specialises in the US abortion debate. "They feel like now that we don't have Roe protecting abortion why would we pull back? And I think Kristan Hawkins is a big part of that."

Just how far Hawkins will get - how close to abolishing abortion she will come - remains an open question.
"I don't see a point in American history where Americans are going to want an absolute ban on abortion," Ziegler said. "There is no sign of that."
But Hawkins and others are exploring ways to bypass both public opinion and political resistance, Zieger said. One, perhaps the most feasible, would be to ask the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to recognise foetal personhood under the Constitution.
It seems improbable, but those are odds Hawkins is used to.
Last month, in Northville, Michigan, Hawkins stood in a small first-floor conference room, neat rows of potential donors sitting in front of her. She began her speech with an anecdote from early in her career.
A pro-life mentor had offered Hawkins some unsolicited advice: stop saying "when" Roe v Wade is overturned. By assuming Roe's demise, he cautioned, she sounded "too immature, too naive".
Hawkins ignored him. She told her staff to double down, boost their messaging that promised to send Roe to the "ash heap of history".
"I always tell our team: winners envision the win."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65923956
 
^She is BS!C. What kind of sociopath won't make exceptions for rape, incest, the mother's life being in danger, AND prohibiting contraception?

WTH gives her the moral right to dictate other people's health choices?
 
^She is BS!C. What kind of sociopath won't make exceptions for rape, incest, the mother's life being in danger, AND prohibiting contraception?

WTH gives her the moral right to dictate other people's health choices?

She is psychotic.

Edit: well okay to elaborate a bit, it looks like she fell for one of those anti-abortion propaganda films hook line and sinker.
 
WTH gives her the moral right to dictate other people's health choices?
I think it's religion. If you look at her bio on her website, "Christian" is the first word she chooses to describe herself. I would imagine she's at least dismissive of things like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, maybe even hostile to them, and probably regards science as convenient when it confirms her beliefs and irrelevant when it doesn't.

EDIT: I see that she went to Bethany College, historically a Christian college, but I can't tell how aggressive it is with its faith traditions today. Its own website makes it seem mild, but it would, wouldn't it?
 
I think it's religion. If you look at her bio on her website, "Christian" is the first word she chooses to describe herself. I would imagine she's at least dismissive of things like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, maybe even hostile to them, and probably regards science as convenient when it confirms her beliefs and irrelevant when it doesn't.

EDIT: I see that she went to Bethany College, historically a Christian college, but I can't tell how aggressive it is with its faith traditions today. Its own website makes it seem mild, but it would, wouldn't it?

The article gives us an origin story. She went to work at a crisis pregnancy center, implying there was already a degree of preexisting indoctrination into anti-abortion ideology, then they showed her Silent Scream and she decided her life would be devoted to stopping this genocide.

But of course she's too much of a pussy to kill an abortion doctor or any other direct action that would be 100% justified if her lunatic beliefs about abortion were accurate.
 
The article gives us an origin story. She went to work at a crisis pregnancy center, implying there was already a degree of preexisting indoctrination into anti-abortion ideology, then they showed her Silent Scream and she decided her life would be devoted to stopping this genocide.
Right, I'm inferring that she was Christian, maybe raised Christian, or something to do with the college she graduated. She clearly went through a process of radicalization. I'm not sure I believe that an otherwise-rational person simply watches Silent Scream and goes off the deep end.
 
^She is BS!C. What kind of sociopath won't make exceptions for rape, incest, the mother's life being in danger, AND prohibiting contraception?

WTH gives her the moral right to dictate other people's health choices?
I don’t understand “exceptions”. You either believe abortion is murder or you don’t. So you either support abortion or you don’t. If you have a moral conscious, you don’t pick the halfway options. Only liars whose actual goal all along is the control of women, but also have some kind of reachable heart somewhere in there to pull at, would admit a morally compromised position with such exceptions.
 
After Roe v. Wade: dwindling US abortion access is harming health a year later

The US Supreme Court’s decision one year ago to revoke the right to an abortion has begun to take a toll on women’s health in the United States, say researchers who have been monitoring the effects of the ruling. Although it is too soon to measure the full impact, a grim picture has begun to emerge.

After the court issued its decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, a landmark 1973 ruling that had protected abortion access in the United States for decades, some states banned abortion. Surveys now indicate that people who experience pregnancy complications in these states have been put in life-threatening situations because physicians couldn’t treat them properly. A study by the Society of Family Planning, an organization focused on abortion and contraception research based in Denver, Colorado, also estimates that in states with bans, such as Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, the average number of abortions has decreased drastically. But they have increased nearly as much in nearby states, such as Kansas, where abortion is allowed, because people travel there to seek care (see ‘A post-Roe landscape’).

This balancing effect means that, overall, the average number of abortions per month in the United States has decreased by about 3%. That might seem like a small reduction, says Caitlin Myers, an economist at Middlebury College in Vermont who has been tracking abortion access. But “what that means is that somewhere between one-fifth and one-quarter of people who are trying to get out of the ‘ban states’ to obtain an abortion aren’t making it out”, and are instead continuing with unwanted pregnancies, she says.

Anticipating change
After the Supreme Court issued its decision on 24 June last year, public-health researchers, having long studied abortion access, warned that financial hardships and health harms would increase for the country’s most vulnerable, who lack the resources to travel for an abortion, or to raise a newborn. Researchers also predicted that the decision, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, would particularly affect those who would be unable to book telehealth appointments because of a lack of internet access, thereby increasing disparities.

Anticipating these changes, Myers and her colleagues have been monitoring the distances people now have to travel to get to the nearest abortion facility. According to their unpublished findings, 23% of US women who are of reproductive age have experienced an increase in that travel distance, and are now, on average, more than 300 miles (about 480 kilometres) away from the nearest provider.

Kari White, a public-health specialist at the University of Texas at Austin’s Population Research Center, has focused on the impact of the ban enacted in Texas. Before Roe was even overturned, the state had passed a law prohibiting abortion care after around six weeks of pregnancy, a stage when many people who are pregnant do not even realize it. At the time, it was the most restrictive abortion law in the country, and although it was the subject of legal challenges, the Supreme Court declined to block it, foreshadowing what was to come.

While the six-week ban was in effect, White says, “people were driving in the middle of the night, making a seven-hour trip out and back in a single day because they couldn’t afford to take more time off work” to get an abortion. Now, with a complete ban in Texas and some neighbouring states, such as Louisiana and Oklahoma, sometimes the closest clinic is 600 miles away, she adds. In addition, because Texas also has a number of ‘interior border checkpoints’ — where agents surveil for undocumented immigrants — it is impossible for some people to make those trips, she says.

White notes that, compared with states where abortions are allowed, many of the states that ban abortions already had poor track records for maternal and child health before Roe was overturned, especially among people of colour and those with low incomes. She expects the disparities to worsen — although it’s not yet possible to measure the exact changes, because births resulting from unwanted post-Roe pregnancies only started to happen earlier this year.

Shared experiences
Although one year isn’t long enough to quantify some of the consequences of abortion restrictions, researchers have been interviewing health professionals to get an idea of the big picture. One such initiative, called Care Post-Roe, published its early findings in May.

Daniel Grossman, director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a social-sciences research programme at the University of California, San Francisco, says that he and his colleagues launched the initiative because they had heard that health providers were being advised by their employers not to speak to the media. The researchers wanted to give physicians, nurses and midwives an opportunity to share their stories, albeit anonymously.

The initiative’s findings so far suggest that, in states with abortion bans, the treatment of certain pregnancy complications has been compromised. For example, when a person’s water breaks dangerously early in a pregnancy — before the fetus is able to survive on its own — the standard of care is to offer an abortion to prevent life-threatening infections. According to the providers’ reports, however, in many cases, people had to be sent home and told to return when labour started, or if they had signs of infection.

In one case, an individual later returned to the hospital with sepsis and had to be treated in the intensive care unit. She delivered the fetus, but required a procedure to remove the placenta. “After everything she went through, the patient was still worried that maybe something either she had done or the physician had done could put them at risk for being prosecuted,” Grossman says. “She asked him if this situation would be considered ‘life-threatening enough’, and that’s just so shocking to hear. It highlights the fear that these laws have engendered among physicians and patients.”

d41586-023-02083-w_25528694.png
 
Back
Top Bottom