Two congresswomen from New York have introduced bills that could establish greater transparency in the ways menstrual product companies label ingredients and assess the health risks of products.

Rep. Grace Meng introduced the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act of 2017, which would require companies to include a list of ingredients on the label of menstrual products, such as menstrual cups, menstrual pads, tampons, and therapeutic vaginal douche apparatuses.

She’s joined by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, who reintroduced a bill that would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a research program to determine whether chemicals in feminine hygiene products present any health risks. The bill, titled the Robin Danielson Feminine Hygiene Product Safety Act of 2017, was named after a 44-year-old woman who died of toxic shock syndrome from a tampon in 1998.

According to the Maloney’s bill, the average person who menstruates “may use as many as 16,800 tampons” in their lifetime.” Tampons can contain trace amounts of dioxin, which the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization have both concluded can cause cancer.

Aside from dioxin, Maloney’s bill would also instruct the National Institutes of Health to research the presence of synthetic fibers, chlorine, fragrances, dyes, preservatives, and other components in tampons and other feminine hygiene products.

“It is astounding that manufacturers of tampons, pads, menstrual cups and other menstrual hygiene products are not required to disclose the ingredients of these products,” Meng said in a statement on her website. “We can easily see the ingredients used in the shampoo we put in our hair—why doesn’t this apply to products that touch, or are inserted into, sensitive female anatomy?  Consumers are being denied access to crucial information, which affects their safety and impacts their ability to make informed choices. My bill, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, would finally change that.”

Activists took to D.C. in May in support of the bills.

Thank you to Rep. Grace Meng for introducing legislation on the right to know what’s in our menstrual products! #ComeClean #FemCarerally pic.twitter.com/6An6yA3rGl

— COLOR (@colorlatina) May 23, 2017

Thrilled to join @colorlatina to urge Congress and companies to care about feminine care! #FemCarerally #comeclean #detoxthebox pic.twitter.com/0fKr9jjFDz

— Morgan MenesesSheets (@morgmeneshets) May 23, 2017

Activism surrounding menstrual products is nothing new for Meng. In February, she introduced a “menstrual equity” bill to increase the availability and affordabillity of menstrual hygiene products.

The congresswomen’s bills are still in the early phases of the legislative process, but they highlight a need for transparency in menstrual health.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bills Push to Make Menstrual Product Ingredients More Transparent appeared first on Law Street.

Texas has asked the government to give the state back the federal Medicaid money that it gave up when it chose to exclude Planned Parenthood from its family planning program. The request has alarmed women’s health advocates, who worry that if Texas is given access to the money without having to include Planned Parenthood again, it could set an example for other states to do the same thing.

The program Texas wants to fund is an alternative for women’s reproductive health that doesn’t include any abortion providers. It is called Healthy Texas Women and it connects women with providers that offer cancer screenings, contraception, and treatment for diabetes or high blood pressure. It helps women that make up to 200 percent of the poverty line and don’t qualify for Medicaid.

Normally, these types of programs are financed largely by federal money and the rest by the state. But after Texas decided to shut out all providers that offered abortions in 2013, the program had to be completely financed by state money. That is because federal law doesn’t allow states to simply pick and choose which providers it gives Medicaid money to.

Um, no. If you throw women under the bus, you don’t get the money. https://t.co/GLHN6iTsZk

— Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) May 16, 2017

But critics say most women don’t know that Healthy Texas Women even exists. The number of women enrolled has decreased significantly compared to the number enrolled in a previous version of the program in 2015. And the difference is even larger compared to the number enrolled in the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program in 2011, when Planned Parenthood was still included. Officials have spent millions of dollars on marketing, but it hasn’t been as successful as expected. Reduced funding also led to many women losing health coverage.

Joe Pojman, executive director for Texas Alliance for Life, said that “low-income women deserve better care than Planned Parenthood is willing or able to provide.” But women are not as sure about that. Jessica Farrar, Democratic Texas State Representative, said earlier in May:

Increased funding for marketing for Healthy Texas Women highlights the simple fact this program has not yet, and never will, replace Planned Parenthood.

And Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director for Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, agreed:

They’ve been trying this for several years, but every time they’ve gone through an iteration of this they’ve not been able to make it work. Why is this taking you so long if it was supposed to be so easy to do this without Planned Parenthood?

A study looking into the effects of removing Planned Parenthood from the state’s health program showed that throughout the following 18 months thousands of women stopped getting long-acting birth control. There was also a 27 percent increase in Medicaid pregnancies. Texas now has the most births in the country: 400,000 babies were born between July 1, 2014 and the same date a year later. Texas also has one of the highest teen birth rates in the U.S.

Now state legislators wants to get the Medicaid funding back for Healthy Texas Women but not be required to include any abortion providers. And considering President Trump’s record on abortion legislation so far, it doesn’t look impossible. “This is a new administration, and we’re looking at what funding opportunities may exist for us,” said Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Wants Medicaid Money Back, Won’t Play Nice with Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

In January, almost half a million people joined the Women’s March in Washington, DC while tens of thousands more marched in smaller protests across the country. The Women’s March has been called the largest single day protest in recorded American history–and the organizers behind the march are not letting their momentum fade. This week, they announced plans for a “Day Without a Woman,” a general strike for women across the country and perhaps even around the globe.

Details on when the strike will take place have yet to be released but a surge of support is evident across social media platforms. The successful Women’s Strike on Inauguration Day, during which over 7,000 workers went on strike from “both paid and unpaid work,” could serve as a valuable template for organizers of a national strike. Those who marched in January seem ready and willing to strike so the challenge for the organizers may not be mass participation but instead efficacy.

Strikes often shut down a single sector of a single industry–a school, a factory, a mine–but they can also go city or district-wide, forcing local governments and employers to cave under pressure. Shutting down a company on a national level is a herculean task, but it can be done–however, the Women’s March organizers are not targeting a single company, or even a single industry. Their vision involves women (and men who would strike in solidarity) striking in the same vein as the Black Monday protests for women’s reproductive health that took place in Poland in 2016–a national day of strike in every industry, at every level, so large that it could not be represented by a single union or cause.

This type of strike could make for a second wave of impressive protests across the nation but it won’t necessarily cripple the economy of the country–strikers will take a vacation day or an unpaid day off and then return to work the next day. The strikers themselves will be the ones who will have to make a sacrifice, as their employers likely won’t lose any money from an employee being absent for a single day.

The Black Monday strikes were powerful but did not come close to stalling the economy of Poland. Unions have historically found strength in the length of their strikes–going without heat, teachers, or transport infuriates the public and makes a company or regulator cave to public demand for a return to usual service. However, when a strike is not concentrated on a single industry, public services and the general economy continue to operate as per usual. Another challenge for the strike will be laying out a concise set of demands. The Black Monday protests were targeted toward a single abortion bill, which ultimately did not pass, whereas the Women’s Strike would be working against a larger set of issues and legislation.

The Women’s Strike is only in its infancy, barely even a viable practice at the moment, yet it seems to be a largely symbolic act. That being said, a national strike can still open important dialogues, influence the opinions of elected officials, and engage citizens who may have been apathetic in the past. Ultimately, the strike will not disrupt the American economy but it will unite women in a common act of civil disobedience.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Challenges of Building a National Women’s Strike appeared first on Law Street.

A recent study found that male birth control injections could be up to 96 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. If this research were to be successful in creating a viable new form of birth control, it could be potentially groundbreaking for women, who have largely held the burden of being responsible for contraception.

But don’t get too excited yet; the study was halted prematurely because too many men dropped out due to adverse effects such as “change in mood,” as well as “acne, pain or panic at first injection, palpitations, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction.”

News of this development drew a collective eye roll from women across the internet. Typical side effects of hormonal birth control for women vary greatly depending on individuals and method used, but for the pill, the most common form of contraception, they include headaches, weight gain, mood changes and nausea–just to name a few. Certain types of pills have also been known to increase a woman’s , a dangerous and potentially fatal possible side effect. Other common forms of contraception, including IUDs,  the vaginal ring, and injectable birth control, also carry serious risks.

As might be expected, the reaction online was not sympathetic:

Men will experience mood swings with male birth control shots ..

Women: pic.twitter.com/ofcGHCoHOn

— SUNNI (@SunniAndTheCity) October 31, 2016

Successful male birth control trials ending due to side effects like depression, mood swings, and acne is LITERALLY A JOKE

— jess white (@jesssswhiiite) November 1, 2016

Male birth control trial canceled after they learn it causes mood swings and depression.

Meanwhile. pic.twitter.com/gO7CLLdndh

— Carina MacKenzie (@cadlymack) November 1, 2016

when u hear male birth control was discontinued cause it was causing them weight gain, acne and mood swings. pic.twitter.com/n7Ih8DlF0v

— brenna (@brennaacasey) November 1, 2016

The Daily Show also delivered a harsh takedown of the men who dropped out. In response to the fact that the side effects of female birth control were potentially much more serious than those that the men suffered from, correspondent Michelle Wolf quipped, “side effects are the only area where women earn more than men.”

However, as Vox notes, the internet criticism toward the study’s participants may be misguided: the rate of side effects was high enough that the safety of the study was put into question. And while it may seem like mood swings and acne aren’t severe enough to end a study, the rate of side effects were allegedly higher than the rate of side effects in female hormonal birth control. In the rush to judgment, it seems that people overlooked the fact that the men who dropped out were not directly responsible for the research ending early.

The study still led to discoveries that could open the door for viable forms of male birth control in the future, by showing that an effective contraceptive for males is indeed possible. Also, “despite the adverse effects, more than 75 percent of participants reported being willing to use this method of contraception at the conclusion of the trial.” (So, not all men are weak).

The hope is still alive for finding some usable form of male birth control sooner rather than later.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Study On Male Birth Control Ended Early Because There Were Too Many Side Effects appeared first on Law Street.

Birth control has been a source of political controversy since its first days on the market. In recent times, the debate over reproductive health care has traveled to the highest level of judiciary power in the country.

In the June 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court favored a corporation’s religious freedom over a woman’s right to affordable reproductive health coverage. Although the ruling did not completely strike down coverage set forth in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it did set up the possibility for some employers to deny coverage. The IUD, or intrauterine device, is one of the contraceptive methods that no longer has guaranteed coverage. What are the policies surrounding birth control in America, and how truly effective is the IUD?

Pre-Hobby Lobby Policy

Passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) recognizes that contraception is a necessary preventive health service for women. The ACA requires coverage without cost-sharing for women for all FDA-approved contraceptives. This benefits all women who want to use an IUD because of the high upfront costs without insurance.  All FDA-approved birth control methods must be covered by the plans, which includes: IUDs, the pill, the patch, the ring, the shot, diaphragms, sterilization procedures, and cervical caps.

Hobby Lobby Ruling

On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from government regulations that would require them to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties consolidated their cases to challenge the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is limited to closely held corporations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). While some supporters of the majority’s ruling claim the decision won’t affect many women, that is simply not true. More than 90 percent of all American businesses are made up my closely held firms, and they employ approximately 52 percent of the workforce.

The companies argued that just like places of worship and non-profit organizations with religious affiliations, their religious beliefs should exempt them from covering certain emergency contraceptives. This includes IUDs, Plan B, and Ella. Hobby Lobby objected to the morning-after pills and IUDs as they believed they cause abortions. The reasoning is that these forms of contraceptives prevent conception and fertilized egg implantation in the uterus, which to them is equivalent to aborting a life. Director of Contraceptive Development for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Diana L. Blithe, has stated that there is no scientific evidence that these contraceptives work beyond fertilization. Birth control pills will continue to be covered, as they are not in opposition to the employer’s beliefs. The ACA originally allowed for non-profit religious organizations to opt out of providing coverage for contraceptives and have outside insurance companies cover the women, and Justice Alito suggested that for-profit corporations adopt this method as well.

While women were denied basic reproductive health care by this ruling, the male-dominated majority ruled that  would continue to be covered. This hypocrisy has been noted by the public and Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg in her blistering dissent.

What is the IUD?

The IUD is a small, polyethylene “T-shaped” device that is inserted by a health care provider into a woman’s uterus to prevent pregnancy. In the United States there are two types of IUDs available: hormonal (Mirena and Skyla), which released progestin, and copper (ParaGard). Mirena is effective for five years and Skyla is effective for three years; both may give the woman lighter periods. ParaGard is effective for 12 years and does not alter periods. The main way both types of IUDs work is by manipulating the way sperm moves so they are unable to join with an egg.

What are the benefits of an IUD?

The IUD and the birth control implant are the most effective reversible contraceptive methods available. By not requiring user intervention, the risk of pregnancy is less than one percent. If inserted up to five days after unprotected intercourse, copper IUDs can also serve as emergency contraception.

Hormonal methods offer supplementary health benefits in addition to contraceptive use. Similar to a birth control pill, an IUD can treat menstrual pain, menstrual bleeding, and acne.

IUDs help women avoid pregnancy coercion — pressuring one into becoming pregnant — and pregnancy due to a sexual partner’s refusal to use contraception. The device is effective, long lasting, and it’s nearly impossible for a partner to detect one.

Many other forms of birth control are advertised for how effective they are in preventing pregnancy. This is true, if they are used properly. A good example for this is the male condom. It is a common belief that they are 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, however the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 18 percent of women experience an unintended pregnancy while using this method. The discrepancy in information lies within the mighty if. IUDs are so efficient since they remove human error and are long-lasting. From the same CDC report, it was found that copper IUDs have a significantly lower 0.8 percentage.

What are the disadvantages of an IUD?

IUDs, called the Dalkon Shield, debuted in the United States in the 1950s. However, they were later taken off the market because of complications found in early versions of the device. The previous design led to infections and unwanted pregnancies due to it’s complicated method of correct insertion. It was also not widely known by doctors that it had to be removed when a woman became pregnant in order to avoid infection. Pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility was linked to the Dalkon Shield.Alexandra Sifferlin of Time reported, “According to various reports, upwards of 15 women who became pregnant with a Dalkon IUD inside them died of infections after they miscarried.”

Some other disadvantages include:

• IUDs do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (the male condom provides the best protection from most diseases).
• If a woman is uninsured, an IUD costs between $500 and $1500, including tests, exams, insertion, removal, and the IUD itself. The upfront costs may be a barrier for many women.

Are women using them now?

American women have the lowest rate of IUD se of any developed country and more than half have never heard of them. Laura MacIsaac, Director of Family Planning at Mount Sinai, stated, “IUD use in most of Western Europe, it’s about 20 percent, some countries 30 percent…in America, it’s about five percent.” While these numbers are low compared to other countries, since 2008 Planned Parenthood reports a 75 percent increase in IUD use among patients. In 2009, 8.5 percent of women using contraceptives relied on long-acting reversible contraception such as the IUD. This is a dramatic increase from 2.4 percent in 2002 and 5.5 percent in 2007.

Women between the ages of 25 and 29 who are married, women with no religious affiliation, and women covered by Medicaid use IUDs most frequently. Teenagers are less likely to use the IUD; only three percent of 3.2 million teenage women who use contraceptives chose this method.

Conclusion

IUDs have moved past their sullied past and become one of the most effective methods of birth control on the market. With their long-lasting effectiveness, lack of personal upkeep, and low pregnancy rate, IUDs are a favorable contraceptive option.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Current Contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006-2010, and Changes in Patterns of Use Since 1995

SCOTUS: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Additional

Planned Parenthood: IUD as a Form of Birth Control

Guttmacher: Changes in use of Long-Acting Contraceptive Methods in the U.S., 2007-2009

Guttmacher: IUD Fact Sheet

National Women’s Health Network: Not Your Mother’s IUD: Benefits and Risks of Modern IUDs

Time: Why is the Most Effective Form of Birth Control – the IUD – also the one no one is Using?

The New York Times: Religious Groups Equate Some Contraceptives With Abortion

Planned Parenthood: Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon)

Washington Post: A LOT of People Could be Affected by the Supreme Court’s Birth

USA Today: Hobby Lobby Case: What Birth Control is Affected?

Huffington Post: Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies and Viagra

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The IUD: Beyond the Hobby Lobby Case appeared first on Law Street.

All anyone seems to talk about recently is the Hobby Lobby case and women’s reproductive rights. I think this is grossly unfair. Yes, I agree that women’s health is important; but in all the hustle and bustle, we have forgotten about the other half of the population and their delicate reproductive systems. So, I’m going to bring those deprived, long-ignored men’s issues to the spotlight and finally give them the attention they deserve.

First, some background information that you just might not know:

• A man’s reproductive health is apparently directly linked to his fragile self-esteem. Take, for example, the policeman who sued rapper Meek Mill. Mill allegedly made derogatory comments in the press about the officer, which the cop claimed resulted in his boys in blue losing the heat they were formally packing. This just goes to show that men need a lot of (ego) stroking to remain functional.
• Long ago in France, women could sue for divorce if their husbands had ED. How, you ask, would they be able to prove this? Well, it turns out women didn’t have to prove anything. In a reversal on the old ‘innocent until proven guilty’ credo, it was the man’s job to prove he didn’t have a problem. In the infamous impotence trials, men might request a Trial by Congress allowing them to prove they could perform in the bedroom by, well, performing in the bedroom…in front of the court.
• In India, impotence was legally classified as mental cruelty. I think we can all agree with that. The frustration and shame that this causes is torturous (I assume), and I can understand why a court would say Mother Nature is a cruel mistress for causing it. Oh, wait…it’s mental cruelty caused by the man to his wife? Well, those poor men – it’s just never about them.

Now that you see that men all around the world and throughout time have been mistreated and hurt by their lack of reproductive support, I’m sure you will agree that women have been given way too much attention in the healthcare arena as of late.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

To help change that, I am going to tell you about a couple of lawsuits that resulted when the healthcare industry failed men and their genital health.

The Short Story

The first suit takes place across the border in Canada where a man was rushed to a Montreal hospital with a “fractured appendage.” Details of how the fracture occurred were not given, but what is known is that the injury happened while the man was performing his husbandly duties.

He went to the hospital with great faith that the experienced doctors would be able to help him. The doctors decided that surgery was needed and promptly acted to bring this man out of his misery.

Sadly for him, the procedure had some unintended effects: it left an ugly scar, it stopped him from having intimate relations with his wife, and, maybe worse than anything else, the doctors, like all my hairstylists, trimmed off more than was requested. He allegedly ended up an inch shorter, and unlike my hair, he can’t just wait two weeks for it to grow back. After all this, his unsatisfied wife left, presumably to find a man more able to meet her sizable needs.

The man is now suing the hospital for its alleged negligence and his “indescribable anguish.” The question now becomes, just how is he going to prove his claims? I hope for his sake he has before and after shots.

The Never-Ending Story

This next suit took place in Delaware where a truck driver needed some help getting his motor started: to get back to business, he jump-started his equipment with penile implant surgery.

After the surgery, the man’s ED was gone so you might think to yourself, “Success! Good for that lucky devil!” Unfortunately, the surgery left him with a new concern: he could shift into high gear but couldn’t get back to neutral.

If you have ever seen a Viagra commercial then you know that if your erection lasts more than four hours, you should probably contact a doctor. This trucker must not be a late-night television watcher, though, because he didn’t contact the hospital until a firm eight months had passed.

That’s right: he had an eight-month erection. That’s real stamina.

The doctors claimed they weren’t entirely at fault because the man should have come to them sooner, like maybe when, after the surgery, his “scrotum swelled to volleyball size.” Anyway, another surgery fixed the current problem and a third surgery fixed the initial problem, but it still left the man with bad memories and a lot of medical bills.

The angry driver did what any man who suffered from eight months of hardship would do: he began a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence on the part of the doctors.

I’m sad to say that once again our legal system failed to protect the sexual health and well-being of our male population: it took less than two hours for a jury of his peers to decide that there was no negligence.

I’m all for civil justice, but I think we cannot reach equality until we consider all people. Stand up for men’s rights today!

Courtesy of Tumblr.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashs) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Hammerin Man via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Penile Code: The Unappreciated Plight of Men’s Reproductive Health appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, women’s access to safe abortion services is circling the drain. Between 2011 and 2013, state lawmakers passed more restrictions on abortion than they in the last decade combined.

That’s right. In two years, more abortion restrictions were passed than in the previous ten. That’s some serious shit.

It’s looking like this is going to be a trend that continues into 2014, so let’s take a moment and remind all the anti-choicers out there what actually happens when you prevent women from accessing safe abortions. HINT: They do not get fewer abortions.

1. They seek unsafe abortions.

Cue gasps all around — what’s the first thing women who can’t access safe abortions do? They go find unsafe abortions. Women duck into back alley, sketch-tastic, unsterile abortion clinics for the privilege of having some hack rough up their insides. Often, that same hack will rape her.

Regardless of how much her insides are at risk for getting raped and destroyed, a woman who wants an abortion will still go get one, even if it’s illegal and unsafe. This is reality, conservaturds. Wrap your heads around it.

2. They buy abortion pills on the black market.

Can’t find a dirty sketchball to perform your abortion? No problem. There are plenty of safe, effective abortion pills you can take in the comfort of your own home.

Except! Prescriptions for these pills must be administered by an abortion provider — so if you can’t find one, you’re shit out of luck. Unless, of course, you make an appearance on the black market. Desperate and optionless women are buying these pills on the black market every day, but many of them are counterfeit, rendering them useless at best and harmful at worst. Not to mention, these abortion pills are a bit complicated to administer. Take them incorrectly, and you’ll find yourself in the emergency room.

Again, these risks are stopping no one. Abortions continue to happen.

3. They cross borders to get unsafe abortions.

Don’t have an abortion provider in your city, county, or state? Cross the border into a less anti-feminist state! Or, better yet, head to Mexico. Except abortions are really hard to access wherever you’re headed as well, most likely, and so there’s a good chance you’ll end up in an unsafe situation anyway.

And now, you’re further from home, still at risk for assault or procedure botching, and you’re out a whole bunch more money because traveling is expensive.

Once again, abortions continue to happen.

4. They deliberately harm themselves to induce a miscarriage.
Out come the coat hangers! Seriously, though, women will resort to deliberately getting punched in the stomach, beaten up, or thrown down the stairs in order to induce a miscarriage. Clearly, this is not a very safe or reliable way to self-abort. No one cares. It still happens.

5. They wind up unable to conceive later.

This detail is like a goody bag extra, because botched abortions are just the gift that keeps on giving! When women terminate pregnancies using any of the unsafe methods listed above, they often wind up with serious, permanent damage to their reproductive systems. That means chronic health issues, and often, the inability to conceive when they do actually want to have babies.

This is the definition of not having control over your own body — being forced to have a child when you don’t want to, facing injury or death if you choose to defy that directive, and being unable to bear children when you do want to as a consequential punishment.

This shit happened all the time before Roe v. Wade, and as more and more restrictions are placed on that landmark ruling, it’s continuing to happen with increasing frequency today.

To all the anti-choice agitators and conservative lawmakers who’d like to take away a woman’s right to choose, please note:

Denying women access to safe abortions DOES NOT reduce the number of abortions that happen. Those fetuses you’re so concerned about will still be aborted. All it does is put the women who carry them at greater risk for injury or death. Abortions will happen with or without your legal blessing, Right-wing legislators. Consider this your reality check.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Things That Happen When Women Can’t Access Safe Abortions appeared first on Law Street.