Read the week's best commentary from bloggers at Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress," Rewire and more.
ABORTION RESTRICTIONS:
"Should states be allowed to defy the FDA? The governor of Arizona thinks so," Ian Millhiser, Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress": One day after FDA "announced a change to federal guidelines regarding a drug commonly used to induce abortions -- a change that brings the agency guidelines in line with what is now widely viewed as best medical practice ... Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed legislation [SB 1324] requiring abortion providers to follow a previous, outdated protocol," Millhiser writes. "If this new law survives, it would subject many women to additional risk and discomfort without a corresponding medical benefit," he continues, citing "[a] practice bulletin issued by the American [Congress] of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Family Planning [that] advises against using the older protocol because the newer method of administering the drug 'is as effective' and 'results in significantly fewer adverse effects.'" Millhiser notes that while requiring abortion providers to adhere to the outdated FDA guidelines "is actually a fairly common restriction pushed by anti-abortion groups in state legislatures," the new "Arizona law is a particularly virulent form of this fairly common abortion restriction because it contains a provision that locks the law in place even if the FDA updates its guidelines." Millhiser continues, "It is likely that abortion providers will challenge this law in court, and the fact that the state law purports to overrule the FDA's judgment could give them a powerful legal argument," noting that "a court may decide that the FDA guidelines preempt the state's attempt to force doctors to use the outdated regimen." Moreover, "abortion providers will also have a strong argument that the law is unconstitutional," Millhiser writes, explaining that while a past Supreme Court decision "did say that judges should give 'state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty,' the FDA's new guidelines help clear up any remaining uncertainty about whether the outdated regimen should be preferred to the new regimen" (Millhiser, "ThinkProgress," Center for American Progress, 4/4).
What others are saying about abortion restrictions:
~ "The newest Arizona abortion legislation is yet another extreme example of states policing women's access," Cate Carrejo, Bustle.
~ "Study: Utah's forced 72-hour waiting period dissuades few, raises abortion care costs," Nicole Knight Shine, Rewire.
ANTIABORTION-RIGHTS MOVEMENT:
"Punish women for abortion? Spare the outrage: That IS the 'mainstream' anti-choice position," Jodi Jacobson, Rewire: Antiabortion-rights movement leaders' condemnation of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's comments "that women who have abortions should face 'some form of punishment'" was "political theater at its most insidious," Jacobson writes. Rather, she argues, "The laws and policies pushed by the anti-choice movement and the politicians it supports already punish women both explicitly and implicitly, including by sending them to prison." Jacobson explains, "The anti-choice movement seeks to punish women through a web of entrapment that, spun just a little bit at a time, harms women in ways that are less noticeable to the rest of us because they don't make headlines until women start ending up in jail." She points to "medically unnecessary" mandatory delays that "driv[e] up the costs of abortion care and insul[t] the intelligence of women"; laws "requir[ing] clinics to mimic ambulatory surgical centers" that "forc[e] many clinics to close because providers can't recoup the costs"; "laws to make medication abortion inaccessible, again on medically unnecessary grounds"; and "laws making self-induced abortion a crime." Jacobson asserts, "Put these together and the anti-choice movement has made a safe, legal abortion virtually impossible to obtain. So when, in desperation, women go to any length to end an unintended pregnancy, legislators punish them further by making them criminals and putting them into jail." Noting that "those who seek to outlaw abortion are forever finding new and creative ways to punish women," Jacobson elaborates on how pregnant women are penalized for their pregnancy outcomes. According to Jacobson, "Feticide laws, for example, were ostensibly created to allow for the prosecution of third-party actors who were violent toward pregnant women and, in turn, harmed a fetus" but "are now widely used" to "criminaliz[e] pregnant women for actions they took during their own pregnancy." Jacobson continues, "There are innumerable other ways in which the anti-choice movement is actively punishing women," such as by "supporting monitoring and harassment of women outside clinics and hospitals, making immigrant women fear arrest, and denying women access to abortion for severe fetal and developmental anomalies." Jacobson concludes, "The anti-choice movement is built on lies," and the "laws and policies ... passed and employed throughout the country, that ... infant[i]lize, criminalize, and otherwise treat women ... without agency [are] part of an overall agenda aimed at punishing women ... as a direct result of the advocacy of anti-choice groups" (Jacobson, Rewire, 4/1).
What others are saying about the antiabortion-rights movement:
~ "Criminals or victims? Donald Trump and the anti-abortion puzzle," Geoffrey Stone, Huffington Post blogs.
ABORTION-RIGHTS MOVEMENT:
"This is what it's like to be an abortion provider in the Bible Belt," Becca Andrews, Mother Jones: Andrews discusses "Trapped," a recent documentary that "navigates the grim reproductive rights landscape in the South, with its complex relationship between religion and abortion." According to Andrews, Dawn Porter, the director of the film, decided to make the documentary after visiting "the last remaining abortion clinic" in Mississippi and seeing "the conditions for staff members at the facility." The documentary draws its name, "Trapped," "from insidious laws known as TRAP laws -- Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers -- that target abortion providers through unnecessary regulation," Andrews notes. She writes, "The heroes of [the] film are the women who run clinics in Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, as well as [Willie] Parker, who works with several clinics in the Southeast to provide [abortion care]." She continues, "After nearly every legislative session, a new law threatens to close down these clinics, and all the owners struggle to remain open as they make their way through anti-choice protests and daunting piles of paperwork." Andrews notes, "It's hardest of all to answer the phone calls from desperate women who must be denied services because the clinics are overbooked and, in some cases, have only one doctor." The documentary "is steeped in religion," Andrews continues, pointing to both those who oppose abortion rights based on their religious views and those, "including the documentary's protagonists," who believe that "providing abortion care is one expression of Jesus' commandment to love one another." According to Andrews, the documentary also highlights the dangers abortion providers face, such as one scene in which clinic staff in Alabama pray together to "prepare to endure an Operation Rescue anti-abortion demonstration." Moreover, "[w]hile filming, Porter and her team experienced some of the safety concerns that many abortion providers must face on a daily basis," Andrews continues, noting that abortion-rights opponents "looked Porter up and began posting her name on their websites" and "screamed at her as she visited the clinics." However, noting that providers such as Parker continue to provide abortion care despite safety concerns, Andrews writes that "Porter learned from Parker to not let fear dictate her life" (Andrews, Mother Jones, 4/2).
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS:
"Mississippi vs. everyone: Stat[e] pushing obscene law that's not only anti-LGBT, it could also force women to wear makeup," Amanda Marcotte, Salon: The Mississippi House on Friday "passed the final version of a bill [HB 1523] meant to protect and encourage business owners in the state to discriminate against LGBT people, while simultaneously enshrining, in violation of the [C]onstitution, the idea that conservative Christianity is the only legitimate religion," Marcotte writes. According to Marcotte, conservative state lawmakers "went a step further than other states that have passed similar anti-[LGBT] bills" by passing legislation that "not only protects discrimination against LGBT people, but against any person who has sex outside of marriage." This results, Marcotte argues, in the bill "mak[ing] it easier for employers and schools to strictly police the way you dress to make sure it's masculine or feminine enough." She explains that the legislation would "give business owners broad permission to discriminate against people on the basis of" personal or religious beliefs limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, restricting sex "to such a marriage" and defining someone's gender as the sex he or she was assigned at birth. Under the bill, Marcotte continues, "[r]eligious organizations [would be] allowed to deny employment, housing, and other services," while "[p]rivate businesses [would be] allowed to deny any marriage-related services" to anyone whom they perceive to violate these three religious or personal beliefs. Further, "State employees [could] refuse marriage licenses, as well, and they are offered special protections to 'express' the above religious beliefs." Marcotte notes that discrimination against LGBT individuals "is already legal, to one extent or another, in Mississippi," but this bill would "deny the state the right to 'discriminate' against anyone who would do so." She writes, "That might seem minor, but ... [the] threat of losing government money or contracts for forcing your bigoted religious beliefs on others is actually a pretty strong check on a lot of this behavior." For example, she notes that the bill would protect discrimination by social service organizations, such as food banks and homeless shelters; medical providers, including the denial of transgender care; schools; and adoption agencies. Moreover, in "grant[ing] broad rights to businesses and organizations to play the gender police," the bill would enable a school, for example, "to punish a girl or a trans boy for getting a short haircut or for refusing to wear skirts or make-up," Marcotte explains. She adds, "Beyond just the specific threats, this bill is troubling because it's about building up legal precedent for two repugnant ideas: that discriminating against people on the basis of sexuality and gender is acceptable and that the state should be flagging certain religious beliefs as better than others." Noting that the proposed law "violates some pretty important federal regulations" that could result in the state losing education funding, Marcotte concludes, "Hopefully, Gov. Phil Bryant [R] will realize this kind of radical bigotry against not just LGBT people but the 95% of Americans who have had premarital sex is a step way to[o] far, and will veto it" (Marcotte, Salon, 4/1).
What others are saying about religious refusals:
~ "Not in the name of my 'protection'," Rachel Tuchman, Huffington Post blogs.
