Abortion restrictions studied by the groups included mandatory counseling before an abortion, restrictions on abortion coverage in private and public health insurance plans, and restrictions placed on health clinics that provide abortions, mandating that such clinics must be equipped as ambulatory surgical centers.

“In states where it is harder for women to make choices about their pregnancy and to have a safe abortion, we also see that there are fewer policies in place that could support women throughout their life course, including during pregnancy.”—Terri-Ann Thompson, Ibis Reproductive Health

The latter restriction was the subject of a 2016 Supreme Court case, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which pro-choice advocates say exemplified the recent “pro-women’s health” posturing of the anti-choice movement. In it, the Supreme Court struck down a restriction placed on an abortion clinic in Texas stating that the clinic had to be equipped with a large operating room and wide hallways, and that doctors in the clinic had to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The Court deemed the restrictions to be medically unnecessary.

But Tuesday’s report notes that while the 2016 decision “was cause for celebration, the recent election has signaled a changing landscape for abortion access…Our opponents are abandoning their guise of caring about women’s health and shifting their policy strategy to privilege an embryo or fetus above a woman.”

The study says that while lawmakers in Texas, Indiana, and Louisiana have recently worked to pass a number of laws requiring embryonic and fetal tissue to be buried or cremated, “they all rank among the lowest in children’s health and well-being outcomes.”

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments