The morning after pill, also known as Plan B, is a backup contraceptive. It helps prevent pregnancy after a contraceptive failure or unprotected sex. That’s a good thing. But Plan B gets a bad rap; one of the most popular myths about it is that it “causes an abortion.” It doesn’t, but that doesn’t stop some pro-life organizations from purporting that misinformation, among other incorrect claims. Well, one reproductive rights advocacy organization, Lady Parts Justice League, has released a catchy little video dispelling those myths. And it’s sure to invoke nostalgia for any of us who watched Schoolhouse Rock as kids.

That’s right, she’s just a pill. The pill is voiced by Lea DeLaria, best known as “Big Boo” from “Orange is the New Black.” The video explains what the morning after pill actually does, and how it does not cause an abortion. The morning after pill doesn’t terminate a pregnancy, but instead keeps the pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

According to Lady Parts Justice, the organization chose to release the video specifically now, while Neil Gorsuch is going through confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. Creator Lizz Winstead told the Huffington Post:

In his past rulings, [Gorsuch] has shown he lacks an understanding of basic science, for example, how pregnancy happens or birth control works. It is imperative that we don’t fill our Supreme Court with judges whose working knowledge of the reproductive system is akin to their working knowledge of pagers.

Given current debates over Trumpcare, a.k.a the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in Congress, access to emergency contraceptives may become more important than ever. Congressional Republicans continue to edit their draft, and are now reportedly ready to drop things like maternity care and preventative care like contraceptives from the plan in order to get it passed.

This is what GOP hardliners are saying insurers no longer have to cover. This may get the repeal passed. https://t.co/BOOAtHODQs pic.twitter.com/Y3uoh6jw1L

— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) March 23, 2017

It’s important to all be on the same page about what emergency contraceptives do, and ensure that misinformation isn’t spread to the women who may need to rely on them in the post-Obamacare era. Lady Parts Justice figured out how to do that in an entertaining and relatable manner–so let’s keep the videos coming!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Catchy Schoolhouse Rock Parody Explains Plan B appeared first on Law Street.

Texas lawmakers have been busy the last few weeks. Controversy surrounding a transgender bathroom bill in the mold of North Carolina’s HB2 law thrust the Texas Senate into the news after its Committee on State Affairs approved the measure with a 7-1 vote. Yet, while all of that was happening, another controversial bill flew slightly under the radar.

Senate Bill 25, which was unanimously passed by the committee and will soon move on to the full senate for a vote, would protect doctors from “wrongful birth” lawsuits. This would effectively prevent parents of a disabled child from using wrongful birth as a cause of action against a doctor who withheld information about a fetus’ condition that would have led parents to choose to have an abortion.

The bill’s supporters argue that wrongful birth as a cause of action in a lawsuit is inherently wrong, as it suggests that a birth could be “wrongful.”

“Senate Bill 25 will send a message that Texas does not believe that a life, in and of itself, is an injury in which parents need a damage payment,” said Texas Senator Brandon Creighton during a livestream of the committee hearing.

Critics of the bill argue that a damage payment is necessary in the event that doctors knowingly lied to parents about the health of a fetus because it limits the freedom of choice that a woman has over her pregnancy and her right to have an abortion.

“Eliminating a wrongful birth claim deprives such parents of the right to sue for monetary damages to cover the lifetime costs of caring for their child,” testified Margaret Johnson on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Texas. “These cases are rare but are appropriate redress for parents in such situations.”

Johnson added,

SB 25 is a not so subtle way of giving medical personnel the opportunity to impose their religious beliefs on pregnant women by withholding information about the condition of the fetus–and depriving women of making an informed decision about continuing the pregnancy.

However, Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, contended that the bill “in no way restricts access to testing, in no way restricts access to abortion, and in no way regulates abortion.”

Allmon testified:

It simply says that a lawsuit based on the premise that a child should not have been born is wrong. We believe that a lawsuit that begins as its premise that we should have had the opportunity to kill our disabled child sends a terrible message to those disabled children in Texas.

Supporters of the bill appear to be arguing semantics by pointing out that the bill only targets wrongful birth as a specific course of action because it is morally wrong to suggest that a child should never have been born. They also attest that it wouldn’t hinder a person’s right to bring about another type of medical malpractice lawsuit.

But this logic is dizzying, if not disingenuous. If this law were to take away the option to use wrongful birth and its elements as a claim, constitutional claims could arise that question its validity. Blake Rocap, a legislative counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, pointed out this illogic in his testimony.

Rocap said:

That’s not how it works. If someone were to maintain a suit for medical malpractice and seek the damages for the care of their special child..they would not be able to recover for that care. The court would say ‘What you’re really doing here is trying to maintain a wrongful birth lawsuit, that’s the cause of action you’re really pleading.

If this bill passes in the full senate, it would be added to a list of controversial anti-abortion laws passed in Texas. According to CNN, wrongful birth lawsuits are actually pretty rare, and the bill’s author acknowledges this fact. Additionally, as NPR reported, these lawsuits are incredibly difficult to win.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Debate Over “Wrongful Birth” in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

For many women, birth control pills feel like a lifesaver. When taken properly, they are 99 percent effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and often have the added bonus of reducing acne, regulating periods, and easing menstrual cramps. But, apparently their “lifesaving” status isn’t only meant metaphorically. According to a study by Oxford University, birth control pills have saved 200,000 lives from endometrial cancer over a nine-year period.

The Collaborative Group on Epidemiological Studies on Endometrial Cancer conducted the study and based on the results, believe that 400,000 cases of endometrial cancer before the age of 75 have been prevented over the past 50 years. Researchers determined this after analyzing the cases of 27,276 women with endometrial cancer and 115,743 without.

Endometrial cancer, more commonly known as uterine cancer, is a type of cancer that begins in the lining of the uterus and typically affects post-menopausal women. According to the National Cancer Institute, approximately 60,050 women in the U.S. were diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2016, and approximately 10,470 women died from the disease, based on 2013 statistics.

The Oxford University study was first published in 2015 but made the news again this week, and its findings are more relevant than ever in light of recent events. This is especially true given that today is International Women’s Day, and women across the country are striking to protest President Donald Trump and to advocate for the rights of women–including reproductive rights.

This week Trump unveiled his highly awaited Obamacare replacement plan, which notably included provisions that would defund Planned Parenthood–preventing the organization from using federal funding toward its family planning services–and prevent Americans from using their tax credits to help pay for plans that include coverage of elective abortion services.

Under the new law, low-income women would have a much harder time obtaining affordable contraceptive options, including birth control pills. If the bill manages to make its way through Congress, the number of unwanted pregnancies and endometrial cancer cases could both rise.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Birth Control Pills Saved 200,000 Lives Over a Decade appeared first on Law Street.

In honor of International Women’s Day, organizers of the Women’s March have declared March 8 “A Day Without a Woman.” Here’s what you need to know about the strike and how you can get involved.

How Can I Participate?

According to the organizers’ website, anyone, anywhere can participate in “A Day Without a Woman” in the following ways:

1. Women take the day off, from paid and unpaid labor
2. Avoid shopping for one day (with exceptions for small, women- and minority-owned businesses).
3. Wear RED in solidarity with A Day Without A Woman
4. Male allies lean into care giving on March 8, and use the day to call out decision-makers at the workplace and in the government to extend equal pay and adequate paid family leave for women.

According to the Huffington Post, all 16 public schools in Alexandria, Virginia, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools in North Carolina, and at least one preschool in Brooklyn, New York, have canceled classes Wednesday in anticipation of staff shortages since the vast majority of teachers are women.

Some businesses and organizations, like NARAL Pro-Choice America, have also chosen to close their doors in solidarity with the strike.

What Is the Goal of “A Day Without a Woman”?

The goal of A Day Without a Woman is to both oppose President Donald Trump and “highlight the economic power and significance that women have in the US and global economies, while calling attention to the economic injustices women and gender nonconforming people continue to face.” The strike hopes to promote awareness for women’s equality issues including: the gender pay gap, paid family leave, and reproductive rights.

Will It Work?

It’s hard to say. The only way a strike works is if people actually participate. As Quartz points out, privileged women are more likely to be the ones participating in the strike. A large number of working-class women are expected to abstain from the strike due to the potential repercussions they could face.

Put simply, many women can’t afford to take off an unpaid day of work, or lack any paid time off. Others fear losing their jobs if they strike. In February, a story about twelve employees at the I Don’t Car Bar & Grill in Catoosa, Oklahoma went viral after they were fired via text for staying home to participate in the Immigrant Strike.

The women strike organizers address the issue of privilege, writing:

We must be diligent and look out for each other, using our privilege on behalf of others when it is called for. Social activism is not a privilege. It is a necessity born out of a moral imperative and an imminent threat.

Given the historic number of participants who attended Women’s March events across the country, this strike has the potential to be extremely disruptive. But if even a mere fraction of paid and unpaid women stay home on Wednesday, the organizers will have proven their point–the world needs women!

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the “Day Without A Woman” Strike? 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.

Earlier this month Polish nationals fought for their reproductive rights after the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) tried to pass a bill designed to criminalize abortions. The proposed statute, which was originally brought forth by an anti-abortion citizens’ initiative and encouraged by the Catholic church, aimed to completely outlaw abortions unless the mother’s life was threatened. Prison sentences for illegal procedures would have also increased from two to five years, in addition to penalizing surgeons who perform unlawful operations.

In the wake of such a proposition, a series of protests dubbed “Black Monday” disrupted the ordinance from gaining further momentum in the predominately Catholic country. Three days after these events unfolded, the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish parliament) overturned the bill in a 352-58 vote–proving the power of an active citizenry. Considering how successful these protests were in persuading the government to discard the bill, Poland nonetheless has an array of political and cultural challenges to overcome before women achieve total self-autonomy. The following article delves into some of these obstacles.

The Magnitude of “Black Monday”

On a conceptual level, these historic actions were inspired by an Icelandic strike in 1975, where 90 percent of the country’s female population abandoned their jobs and domestic duties to denounce rampant workplace discrimination. Propelled by this example, protests were held throughout Poland and other surrounding countries on Monday October 3, 2016. Solidarity events took place in Berlin, Dusseldorf, London, and Paris, although the largest of these assemblies occurred in the Polish capital of Warsaw where approximately 30,000 individuals (clad in black clothing) gathered to rebuke the religious-based injunction. Such an outpouring of support surprised many, considering people only had a day’s notice to prepare for the event. Some even boycotted school and work to show their commitment to the cause.

“The protest was bigger than anyone expected. People were astonished,” said one activist, Agnieszka Graff. “Warsaw was swarming with women in black. It was amazing to feel the energy and the anger, the emotional intensity was incredible.”

During an interview with NPR, Reuters staff member and Polish citizen, Justyna Pawlak, also explained how the protests caught on like wild fire, despite the lack of initial planning:

There wasn’t a real kind of serious organization committee. And what’s interesting is, you know, Poland, as you said, is a very conservative country still, even though the power of the church and the – kind of the sway of the church over the heart and soul of churchgoers has been waning, bishops still have a lot of – a lot of influence over how people vote and how they think. There’s still quite a lot of opposition for abortion on demand in Poland, but many women felt that these new proposed restrictions just simply went too far.

An Unforeseen Political Response

Following these nationwide protests, the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the Polish parliament urged the PiS to reconsider the ordinance. PiS Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski surprised many by taking this suggestion to heart after witnessing the intensity of the Black Monday demonstrations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the right-wing politician realized that a total ban could potentially have adverse effects later down the road. From his perspective, a complete ban would only embolden future efforts among liberal politicians to ensure unabated access to abortions someday. In the end, Kacynski’s remarks resonated among other senior politicians and even the Catholic clergy, who couldn’t endorse prison sentences for women seeking abortions.

“What you’re proposing isn’t the right course of action,” said Kaczynski. “Considering the situation in the society, what you’re proposing will be a factor that will start processes whose effect will be exactly opposite to what you’re talking about.”

Poland’s Strong Catholic Roots

Compared to other countries in the European Union, Poland’s pre-existing reproductive laws were already among the most restrictive because of the nation’s Catholic roots. Last year approximately 1,000 women received legal abortions, which could only be fulfilled if the fetus was severely damaged, if the mother’s life was jeopardized, or if the pregnancy was caused by incest or rape. Although the recently initiated bill was not ratified, these stipulations still exist today. Faced with such barriers at home and fear of stigmatization, an estimated 150,000 illegal abortions are performed every year in facilities with questionable sanitary conditions. Keeping this in mind, thousands of Polish women also travel abroad to receive abortions, especially in nearby countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia–termed “abortion tourism.”

These aforementioned policies began in 1993 as a means to replace Poland’s communist-era policies where abortions were once easily obtainable. With 95 percent of the country identifying as Catholic, it is widely acknowledged that the church yields profound “moral authority” over the population and influences people’s political decisions. Some doctors are reluctant to even facilitate abortions, even if the mother’s survival is in peril or if a pregnancy is a result of rape. There have been noted cases where doctors deliberately delayed approving abortions until the twelfth week when it’s too late to remove the fetus. Back in 2012, for example, officials tried to persuade a 14-year-old from opting out of an abortion after being raped. Another problematic incident transpired when a vision-impaired mother, Alicja Tysiąc, was forced to follow through with her pregnancy regardless of the dangers it presented to her eyesight. This brings up the question of human rights and whether or not Poland’s reproductive policies are disregarding Polish women’s wellbeing.

Interest groups such as the Stop Abortion coalition and think-tank Ordo Iuris are still actively trying to enact prohibitive laws against abortions. After all, they are the lobbyists responsible for presenting the Polish parliament with more than 400,000 signatures to start the bill in the first place. At first these groups’ endeavors were backed by the Catholic church. In the long run, though, the clergy could not promote a law allowing for the imprisonment of women and health practitioners. 

Conclusion

Public opinion over abortion appeared to drastically change once the protests materialized. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Poles now disapprove of the ban, not to mention desire the existing set of reproductive laws to become more liberalized. The Economist says that today only 14 percent of Poles condone the original ban (in hindsight), making it highly unpopular among today’s general populace.

The participants of Black Monday may have set a new precedent for other countries with restrictive abortion laws, but pro-choice activists still have a lot of work cut out for them. Certain political parties are currently drafting their own anti-abortion bills and trying to push them into legislation. For example, it is reported that PiS is pushing for a “eugenic abortions” bill that would criminalize abortions for fetuses with abnormalities–meaning that the three existing stipulations for abortions would be dwindled down to only two. So far in PiS’s tenure in Polish parliament, the group has also cut state funding for in-vitro fertilization as well as drafted legislation to ban and criminalize the morning-after pill.

To prevent further “medieval regulations” from being placed on the agenda, Poland’s opposition party, Nowoczesna (meaning “modern” in Polish), have pledged to provide women with more reproductive freedom. The liberal party partnered with the Save the Women group to plan the Black Monday protests. According to them, illegal abortions could cease to exist if the Polish government decided to introduce sex education into the classroom, allocate state-funded contraception, as well as provide wider access to qualified doctors.

Resources

BBC News: Poland Abortion: Parliament Rejects Near-Total Ban

CBC News: Poland’s Proposed Ban on Abortion Part of Broader Push to Turn Back History

Center for Reproductive Rights: Tysiąc v. Poland: Ensuring Effective Access to Legal Abortion

The Conversation: The Battle Over Abortion Rights in Poland is Not Over

Economist: Polish Women Skip Work to Protest Against an Abortion Ban

The Guardian: Poland’s Abortion Plan Near Collapse After Mass Protests

New York Times: Poland Steps Back from Stricter Anti-Abortion Law

NPR: Poland Backs Down on Abortion Plan After Extraordinary Protests

Reuters: Abortion Protests Rattle Polish Ruling Party, May Prompt Rethink

Reuters: Europe Rights Court Condemns Poland in Abortion Rape Case

Reuters: More Polish Women Seen Seeking Abortions Abroad

Vox: Poland Votes Down an Extreme Abortion Ban After Thousands of Women Go on Strike

Wall Street Journal: Poland Rejects Abortion Ban After Protests

Washington Post: Why Would Poland Make its Already Strict Abortion Law Draconian?

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Poland’s Abortion Protests: What was “Black Monday?” appeared first on Law Street.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is a victory for women’s rights, reproductive rights proponents, and physicians. It’s also a failure for hypocritical, radically immoral Republican men in North Carolina.

The court decided today to avoid reviewing a law that would force doctors to show and describe a fetal ultrasound to a patient immediately before an abortion, even if she resists. A U.S. District Judge previously struck down the law in 2014 for violating the First Amendment, but state officials filed an appeal to overturn this decision. The law was again branded unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In March of this year, North Carolina officials petitioned the Supreme Court in the hopes that the highest court would uphold their woman-hating law. Luckily, SCOTUS has better cases to review than this one, so the previous decisions to reject the law stand.

What’s so disturbing about the ultrasound law is that it symbolizes the too-widely-accepted belief that women are not able to make informed decisions about their own bodies. Lawmakers in North Carolina argued that this law was a protective measure under the umbrella of “informed consent” and that the law simply ensured that women made a “mature and informed” choice about the matter. But forcing doctors to deliver anti-abortion messages on behalf of the state, even when a woman does not agree to hear the information, isn’t consent.

The law used very detailed language that legally bound physicians to tell their patients about alternative options to abortion, such as “keeping the baby or placing the baby for adoption.” It also forced doctors to place the ultrasound image in front of the woman’s face and describe the “anatomical and physiological characteristics” to the patient before permitting an abortion. The law applied to women who were survivors of rape and incest, and those who discovered severe fetal abnormalities. Even more frustrating is the lawmakers’ incorrect assumption that women are inherently uninformed. Sixty-one percent of abortions are undertaken by women who already have one or more child, so they aren’t naïve about the implications of pregnancy or the responsibilities of parenthood. They don’t need the “help” of male lawmakers telling them that their decisions are invalid.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Last year, they argued in their brief that the law:

Commandeers unwilling physicians to use their own voice and expressive conduct to communicate the state’s message against abortion.

The brief further argued that:

It commandeers physicians to convey this message in a uniquely intrusive way — during a medical procedure while the patient is vulnerable and disrobed on an examination table with an ultrasound probe inside or on her.

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny another review of this law may be a victory today, but there are more anti-abortion laws making headlines that the justices will likely have to address soon. For example, an abortion regulation law in Mississippi threatens to close the last abortion clinic in the state. In a similar vein, a Texas regulation currently making its way through the legal system requires clinics to meet the same building equipment and staffing standards that hospitals must meet, reducing the number of abortion clinics in the state. The Texas law is particularly concerning, as it will cause nearly one million women of reproductive age to live more than 150 miles from an abortion clinic, making abortions even more inaccessible to women of limited income or those who have no disposable time to travel the obscenely long distances to a clinic in order to have the procedure.

Reproductive rights are women’s rights, not North Carolinian, lawmaking men’s rights. I’m glad to see that the Supreme Court, if even just passively, recognizes that.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks SCOTUS: A Victory for Reproductive Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, folks! We’ve finally made it through the week. Phew! It’s been a long one, am I right?

Unfortunately, women in Missouri aren’t feeling much relief today. Legislators in the Midwestern state enacted a bill on Wednesday that mandates a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion. There are no exceptions to this rule, even in cases of rape or incest.

So, unless you are about to literally die as a result of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong, if you want an abortion in Missouri, you’ll have to wait it out through a mandatory, three-day “reflection period.” The bill becomes effective in 30 days.

Folks, this bill is extremely problematic for a bunch of reasons.

First, there are the practical ones. Requiring a standard medical procedure to span over a number of days places a real logistical burden on women seeking abortions. Since there’s only one abortion clinic left in the state, accessing abortion services is already super difficult. Many have to travel long distances to reach this single, lonely clinic — a trip that requires a steep financial investment of gas money, wear and tear on your car, and probably a day off from work.

And that’s all before you can even get the actual abortion, which will cost you money, since a number of restrictions on Obamacare and public employee coverage mean it’s pretty unlikely that your insurance will pay for it.

Now, multiply all that hassle by three. Thanks to this bill, not only do Missouri women have to go through all this mess, they also have to take multiple days off from work and book a hotel room.

Oh! And to top off this logistical disaster, that three-day waiting period? You have to go through counseling sessions before it can even begin. They’re specifically designed to misinform women about abortions, and are meant to discourage patients from going through with the procedure — so add another day to that hotel bill, ladies.

The problems with this bill don’t stop there, however. Aside from the practical issues it will cause Missouri women looking to access safe abortion services, it also wreaks a certain level of psychic havoc.

Forcing women to undergo a reflection period to reflect upon a decision they’ve already thought about and made is incredibly condescending, demeaning, and paternalistic. If you’ve traveled 100 miles to get this procedure done — the average distance a patient at St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood will travel to receive an abortion — you’ve already made your decision.

You’ve thought this through.

Abortion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, and guess who knows that better than anyone else? WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ABORTIONS.

Imagine these women were seeking different kinds of medical procedures. A cystectomy, for example, or a colonoscopy. How absurd would it be for someone — aside from her doctor — to step in and tell her to hold on, she’d better think this through?

It would be ridiculous. But the Republican lawmakers of Missouri have decided not to treat abortions like what they are — standard medical procedures — and instead, to separate them out into a special circumstance where women cease to be independent, intelligent adults, capable of making their own decisions. Apparently, when abortions are on the table, the women of Missouri are to be treated like ignorant, irresponsible children.

Now, it’s important to note that this bill didn’t pass easily. When it was introduced earlier this year, Democrats and women’s rights activists protested it, and Governor Jay Nixon even vetoed it. But this week, Republican legislators voted to override the veto, then cut off a Democratic filibuster to force a new vote.

In other words, Missouri Republicans really, REALLY care about forcing women who need abortions to undergo 72 hours of physical, mental, and financial hardship before they’ll be allowed to receive medical care.

Why, exactly, is the GOP so concerned about women’s reproductive systems? The past few years have been filled to the brim with cases of Republican lawmakers restricting women’s access to safe, affordable birth control and abortion services.

New research points to the idea that conservatives believe that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex. A recent study that surveyed Americans on their views about promiscuity found that people who think casual sex is wrong, also believe that women need a man to financially support them.

So, basically, a woman who’s totally independent, both financially and sexually, is a really foreign and potentially threatening concept to many conservative folks. As a result, they’re trying to reign in our ability to have consequence-free sex — which any man can do, by the way, with a quick stop at a local convenience store.

And in Missouri, they’re doing a damn good job.

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 If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder appeared first on Law Street.

RANT WARNING: Be advised, this post may cause bouts of annoyance, defeatism, and pessimism.

Courtesy of Wifflegif

Initially, I planned to write an upbeat post about the recent celebrations of pride happening across the country: the Puerto Rican Day Parade, LGBT Pride, America’s success in the World Cup, and the Fourth of July, to name a few. I thought it would be interesting to extrapolate from these events a larger analysis of celebrating (or not) one’s identity. And then damn Hobby Lobby happened. Womp womp.

Last week, the Supreme Court held in two cases collectively referred to as Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on the basis of religious beliefs. Specifically, the Court found that the ACA’s contraception mandate was not the “least restrictive” way for the government to implement this law and thus it created too substantial a burden on the religious freedoms of the companies at issue. In reaching this conclusion, the Court pointed to a less restrictive workaround in the ACA for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.

More broadly, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued in her 35-page, no-I’m-not-retiring-yet-assholes, dissenting opinion, Hobby Lobby stands for the principle “that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

That’s right: corporations are indeed people. Those legal entities (which, by the way, are created for the purpose of separating the individuals involved from the corporate entity so that those individuals may be shielded from legal liability) apparently eat, sleep, breath, love, and pray? They sound more human than Darth Vader Cheney.

And as persons, corporations can also speak freely (i.e., wholly bankroll political campaigns) and freely exercise their religion (i.e., infringe on a woman’s reproductive rights).

Hell, with the direction in which this Court is taking corporate personhood, businesses — like any actual individual person in this country — may be able to discriminate on a wider scale. What happens when a business owner’s religious beliefs clash with, say, Title VII’s ban on discrimination in employment? What happens when a business owner acts on his belief that being gay is a sin? In answering these questions, I keep seeing the Jim Crow days when business owners were free to discriminate on the basis of race; I keep seeing the 1980s when they were openly homophobic and sexist. That idea is indeed what makes this “a decision of startling breadth,” as Justice Ginsberg put it.

Sure, I understand that slippery-slope, parade-of-horribles arguments are necessarily illogical. But tell that to African Americans who lived through the aftermath of Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate-but-equal holding. Yes, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Hobby Lobby, did promise that the ruling would not open the door to discrimination (exemptions to our anti-discrimination laws). Call me cynical, call me a blasphemer, but frankly I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this Court’s word — this Court that has been so adept at totally flouting precedent and stare decisis when it suits its political ends. Remember Citizens United? Bush v. Gore anyone?

Courtesy of DPMS via Flickr

In fact, we need look no further than last Thursday. Just days after the Court issued its Hobby Lobby ruling, it granted an unsigned emergency order in a new case involving Wheaton College, finding that the very workaround it had hailed as a less restrictive means by which the government could implement the ACA was also unconstitutional — that it substantially burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. What on Earth?! In the span of less than a week Hobby Lobby has already gone further than Hobby Lobby!

So now I sit here wondering what’s next. I wonder how far down this road the Supreme Court will take us. Debbie Downer over here, I know. But this is seriously like the worst season finale ever.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Down the Hobby Lobby Rabbit Hole: Are Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Next? 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.