Tag Archives: Abortion

Ohio lawmakers pass ‘heartbeat’ abortion legislation

Protesters demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on the morning that the court took up a major abortion case focusing on whether a Texas law that imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinic buildings interferes with the constitutional right of a woman to end her pregnancy in Washington

By Kim Palmer

CLEVELAND, Dec 7 (Reuters) – Ohio lawmakers approved a bill that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks after conception, clearing the way for one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the United States if it becomes law.

The Republican-led state House of Representatives and Senate passed the so-called “heartbeat” measure late on Tuesday, sending it to be signed into law by Republican Governor John Kasich.

Kasich, an abortion opponent, has in the past questioned whether such legislation would be constitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide more than four decades ago, but states were allowed to permit restrictions once a fetus was viable. Some states, particularly those governed by Republicans such as Ohio, have sought to chip away at a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.

Lower courts have struck down similar “heartbeat” laws in North Dakota and Arkansas and the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals on those rulings in January.

But now, with Republican President-elect Donald Trump having the opportunity to fill at least one Supreme Court vacancy, conservatives in Ohio hope that the legislation can withstand a challenge in court.

“A new president, new Supreme Court appointees change the dynamic, and there was consensus in our caucus to move forward,” Senate President Keith Faber told the Columbus Dispatch.

“It has a better chance than it did before,” Faber said of the bill’s chances of surviving a constitutional challenge,
according to the Dispatch.

The heartbeat legislation has been approved twice before by the state’s lower house only to fail in the Senate.

The abortion legislation was part of a wider bill on reporting child abuse. It does not make exceptions for rape and incest, though it does allow for abortions that would save the mother’s life, according to text of the legislation.

Some women’s rights groups were swift to condemn the approval of the bill. The Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports abortion rights and tracks abortion legislation, said it would be one of the most restrictive abortion laws if enacted.

“Banning women from getting a medical procedure is out of touch with Ohio values and is completely unacceptable,” abortion-rights advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio said in a statement.

(Additional reporting by Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; editing
by Richard Lough)

Exclusive: Abortion by prescription now rivals surgery for U.S. women

By Jilian Mincer

NEW YORK (Reuters) – American women are ending pregnancies with medication almost as often as with surgery, marking a turning point for abortion in the United States, data reviewed by Reuters shows.

The watershed comes amid an overall decline in abortion, a choice that remains politically charged in the United States, sparking a fiery exchange in the final debate between presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

When the two medications used to induce abortion won U.S. approval 16 years ago, the method was expected to quickly overtake the surgical option, as it has in much of Europe. But U.S. abortion opponents persuaded lawmakers in many states to put restrictions on their use.

Although many limitations remain, innovative dispensing efforts in some states, restricted access to surgical abortions in others and greater awareness boosted medication abortions to 43 percent of pregnancy terminations at Planned Parenthood clinics, the nation’s single largest provider, in 2014, up from 35 percent in 2010, according to previously unreported figures from the nonprofit.

The national rate is likely even higher now because of new federal prescribing guidelines that took effect in March. In three states most impacted by that change – Ohio, Texas and North Dakota – demand for medication abortions tripled in the last several months to as much as 30 percent of all procedures in some clinics, according to data gathered by Reuters from clinics, state health departments and Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Among states with few or no restrictions, medication abortions comprise a greater share, up to 55 percent in Michigan and 64 percent in Iowa.

Denise Hill, an Ohio mother who works full time and is pursuing a college degree, is part of the shift.

Hill, 26, became extremely ill with her third pregnancy, sidelined by low blood pressure that made it challenging to care for her son and daughter. In July, eight weeks in, she said she made the difficult decision to have a medication abortion. She called the option that was not available in her state four months earlier “a blessing.”

The new prescribing guidelines were sought by privately-held Danco Laboratories, the sole maker of the pills for the U.S. market. Spokeswoman Abby Long said sales have since surged to the extent that medication abortion now is “a second option and fairly equal” to the surgical procedure.

“We have been growing steadily year over year, and definitely the growth is larger this year,” Long said.

Women who ask for the medication prefer it because they can end a pregnancy at home, with a partner, in a manner more like a miscarriage, said Tammi Kromenaker, director of the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota.

GAME CHANGER

Medication abortion involves two drugs, taken over a day or two. The first, mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy sustaining hormone progesterone. The second, misoprostol, induces uterine contractions. Studies have shown medical abortions are effective up to 95 percent of the time.

Approved in France in 1988, the abortion pill was supposed to be a game changer, a convenient and private way to end pregnancy. In Western Europe, medication abortion is more common, accounting for 91 percent of pregnancy terminations in Finland, the highest rate, followed by Scotland at 80 percent, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports abortion rights.

In the United States, proponents had hoped the medication would allow women to avoid the clinics that had long been targets of protests and sometimes violence.

But Planned Parenthood and other clinics remain key venues for the medication option. Of the more than 2.75 million U.S. women who have used abortion pills since they were approved in 2000, at least 1 million got them at Planned Parenthood.

Many private physicians have avoided prescribing the pills, in part out of concern that it would expose their practices to the type of protests clinics experienced, say doctors, abortion providers and healthcare organizations.

At the same time, the overall U.S. abortion rate has dropped to a low of 16.9 terminations per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2011, down from 19.4 per 1,000 in 2008, according to federal data. The decline has been driven in part by wider use of birth control, including long lasting IUDs.

In March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration changed its prescribing guidelines for medication abortion. The agency now allows the pills to be prescribed as far as 10 weeks into pregnancy, up from seven. It cut the number of required medical visits and allowed trained professionals other than physicians, including nurse practitioners, to dispense the pills. It also changed dosing guidelines.

The changes were supported by years of prescribing data and reflect practices already common in most states where doctors are free to prescribe as they deem best.

Ohio, Texas and North Dakota took the unusual step of requiring physicians to strictly adhere to the original guidelines. Many abortion providers were reluctant to prescribe the pills under the older guidelines, which no longer reflected current medical knowledge, said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation.

Randall K. O’Bannon, a director at the anti-abortion National Right to Life organization, criticized the new guidelines but said his organization had no plans to fight them.

“What they did was make it more profitable,” O’Bannon said. “It will increase the pool of potential customers.”

Planned Parenthood said both types of abortion typically cost from $300 to $1,000, including tests and examinations. The group charges a sliding fee based on a patient’s ability to pay, regardless of which type of abortion they choose.

VARIED ACCESS

Despite a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that abortion is a woman’s right, access varies widely by state. Some states maintain restrictions on both surgical and medication abortions; others have worked to increase access.

In rural Iowa, where clinics are few and far between, Planned Parenthood is using video conferencing, known as telemedicine, to expand access.

The way it works is, a woman is examined in her community by a trained medical professional, who checks vital signs and blood pressure and performs an ultrasound. The information is sent to an off-site doctor, who talks with the woman via video conference and authorizes the medications.

Since the telemedicine program began in Iowa in 2008, medication abortions increased to 64 percent of all pregnancy terminations, the highest U.S. rate.

In New York, Hawaii, Washington and Oregon, a private research institute, Gynuity Health Projects, works with clinics to send abortion pills by mail to pre-screened women.

“Medication abortion is definitely the next frontier,” said Gloria Totten, president of the Public Leadership Institute, a nonprofit that advises advocates.

And in Maryland and Atlanta, the nonprofit organization Carafem opened centers in the last 18 months that offer birth control and medication, but not surgical, abortions. It promotes its services with ads that read: “Abortion. Yeah, we do that.”

(Reporting By Jilian Mincer; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Lisa Girion)

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law

Boston Planned Parenthood

(Reuters) – A federal judge on Thursday sided with women’s health provider Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit aiming to block a Mississippi law that barred medical providers that perform abortions from participating in the state’s Medicaid program.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan III is the latest in a string of rulings striking down similar laws elsewhere in the country against the women’s health provider.

Jordan’s two page order noted a ruling from the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals that rejected a similar law in Louisiana, saying “essentially every court to consider similar laws has found that they violate” federal law.

Medicaid is a health insurance program for the poor run jointly by the federal government and individual states.

Planned Parenthood said in its complaint that the law, which went into effect in July, unconstitutionally limited patients’ rights to choose the healthcare provider of their choice and would have stopped it from serving low-income patients.

“Yet another court has said it is unacceptable for politicians to dictate where women can go for their health care,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said in a statement. “Planned Parenthood will fight for our patients at every turn.”

Mississippi’s Republican Governor, Phil Bryant, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying in a statement on Facebook: “I believe the law was the right thing to do and I will continue to stand with the legislature and people of Mississippi who do not want their hard-earned money going to the largest abortion provider in the nation.”

Mississippi was among many states adopting new abortion laws as conservatives have sought to chip away at the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

In August, a federal judge prevented Ohio from cutting federal taxpayer funding from 28 Planned Parenthood clinics in the state, setting back the governor’s hopes of stopping the women’s health services group from providing abortions.

(Reporting by Curtis Skinner in San Francisco; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore)

Supreme Court rejects two new abortion cases

The Wider Image: Marble, drape and justice: inside the U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand lower court rulings that blocked restrictions on doctors who perform abortions in Mississippi and Wisconsin a day after the court struck down a similar measure in Texas.

The laws in both states required doctors to have admitting privileges, a type of difficult-to-obtain formal affiliation, with a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the abortion clinic. Both were put on hold by lower courts. The Mississippi law would have shut down the only clinic in the state if it had gone into effect.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Supreme Court rejects pharmacists’ religious claim

A pedestrian walks in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington C

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal filed by pharmacists in Washington state who objected on religious grounds to providing emergency contraceptives to women.

The justices, with three conservatives dissenting, left in place a July ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a state regulation that requires pharmacies to deliver all prescribed medicines in a timely manner.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a dissenting opinion saying the court’s decision not to hear the case is “an ominous sign.”

In Washington, the state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, as long as another pharmacist working at the location provides timely delivery. The rules require a pharmacy to deliver all medicine, even if the owner objects.

The case is one of several around the United States in which people and businesses have sought to opt out of providing services that conflict with their religious faith.

Alito said there is evidence the regulation was adopted because of “hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state.”

“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” Alito added.

Alito’s comments seemed to refer to the current vacancy on the court created by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February and the possibility of a successor appointed by a Democratic president. If Scalia’s replacement is a liberal, Alito appears to be warning, it would tilt the court to the left, and a majority may be less receptive to claims by conservative religious groups that government is infringing upon their rights.

The Supreme Court in 2014 allowed certain businesses to object on religious grounds to the Obamacare law’s requirement that companies provide employees with insurance that pays for women’s birth control. The court in May sent a similar dispute brought by nonprofit Christian employers back to lower courts without resolving the main legal issue.

The appeals court said the rules rationally further the state’s interest in patient safety. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, that court said.

The appeals court had overturned a lower court that had said the rules were unconstitutional. The regulation was challenged by family-owned Stormans Inc, which operates a pharmacy in a grocery store in Olympia. Two individual pharmacists who worked elsewhere also joined the lawsuit.

The objectors are Christians who associate so-called “morning after” emergency contraceptives with abortion.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion law

Demonstrators hold signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the court is due to decide whether a Republican-backed 2013 Texas law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to abortion in Washington

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to abortion rights advocates, striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics.

The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states.

Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women’s health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19.

Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers.

The Texas law required abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges,” a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care.

The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains.

The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure.

Some U.S. states have pursued a variety of restrictions on abortion, including banning certain types of procedures, prohibiting it after a certain number of weeks of gestation, requiring parental permission for girls until a certain age, imposing waiting periods or mandatory counseling, and others.

Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 U.S. adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 percent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 percent said it generally should be illegal.

Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Adfam DeRose; Editing by Will Dunham)

FDA backs expanded use of medical abortion pill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday agreed to allow more access to Danco Laboratories’ abortion pill Mifeprex, likely making it easier and cheaper for women to have an abortion by medication.

The FDA increased authorized use of the pill to 70 days of gestation from the current 49 days, cut the recommended dose of the drug and reduced the number of required visits to a doctor.

The changes are expected to allow greater access to medication abortions, particularly in Texas, North Dakota and Ohio, which have laws that require providers to prescribe the drug according to a more restrictive FDA label in place since 2000.

On Wednesday, the agency updated the Mifepfrex requirements to bring them in line with the most up-to-date scientific studies, which have shown that a third of the dose works as well.

“The FDA label has finally caught up to the evidence based practice in the United States,” said Vicki Saporta, president and chief executive of the National Abortion Federation, an organization of abortion providers. “It has the potential of opening medical abortion care in more rural areas because it does not have to be given by a surgical abortion provider,” she added.

The FDA decision comes amid a heated 2016 presidential race.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court took up a major abortion case which represents a test for a strategic shift that abortion opponents have taken in recent years: to apply restrictive regulations to abortion doctors and facilities rather than try to ban the procedure outright.

Mifeprex was approved in 2000 to terminate early pregnancy when given in combination with misoprostol, an anti-inflammatory drug that was originally approved to prevent gastric ulcers.

Under the new prescription information on the label, patients will take one 200 mg tablet of Mifeprex on day one instead of three 200 mg tablets. They will take 800 mcg of misoprostol 24-48 hours after taking Mifeprex. Previously they took 400 mcg on day three.

Under the old label, patients were asked to return to their doctor 14 days after taking Mifeprex for an examination. The new label requires that they return between seven and 14 days for an “assessment.”

As far back as 2001, an estimated 83 percent of U.S. providers were no longer using the old FDA-approved regimen, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which backs abortion rights but whose research is used by both sides of the debate.

(Reporting by Toni Clarke, Jilian Mincer and Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Alistair Bell)

Supreme Court temporarily blocks Louisiana abortion law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court, two days after hearing a major abortion case from Texas, on Friday temporarily blocked a Louisiana law imposing regulations on doctors who perform abortions in a move that would allow two recently closed clinics to reopen.

In a brief order, the court granted a request by abortion providers seeking to reinstate a lower-court injunction that blocked the Republican-backed 2014 law, which required doctors to obtain a formal affiliation with a local hospital.

The abortion providers contend the law was designed to shut down abortion clinics by requiring hospital “admitting privileges” that are difficult for their doctors to secure.

Louisiana will now have four clinics in total.

The order noted that one of the eight justices, conservative Clarence Thomas, said he would have denied the application.

The order said the court’s action was in line with its decision in June to temporarily block part of a Texas abortion law that was challenged by abortion providers in a high-profile case. The justices heard oral arguments in that case on Wednesday.

The Louisiana law mandates that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. The regulation matches one in the Texas law.

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in January granted a preliminary injunction sought by abortion providers, finding the law violated the constitutional right to an abortion established by the Supreme Court in 1973. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that decision on Feb. 24, allowing the law to go into effect.

The high court’s action sent mixed signals on how it might rule in the Texas case, in part because the justices previously allowed the Texas admitting privileges provision to go into effect.

The action could suggest the court has greater concerns about admitting privileges requirements than were indicated during Wednesday’s argument in the Texas case. Friday’s move effectively put Louisiana’s law on hold while the justices prepare a ruling, expected by the end of June, in the Texas case.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents abortion providers in both cases, welcomed the court’s action.

“These underhanded tactics to cut off women’s access to safe, legal abortion simply cannot stand,” Northup said.

The Texas case also involves a separate provision that requires clinics to have costly, hospital-grade facilities.

The Louisiana law was signed by Republican then-Governor Bobby Jindal in 2014.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)