iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Abortion Laws Proposed In Some States Would Buck National Trend, Expand Access

Posted: 04/24/2012 1:03 pm Updated: 04/24/2012 1:15 pm

Kehoe
California State Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) introduced a bill that would expand access to abortion for women in her state.

WASHINGTON -- As many states debate and pass new restrictions on abortion, often against increasing resistance, a small number of others are considering moves in the opposite direction, weighing legislation that would increase access to and coverage of abortions.

A California bill awaiting its first hearing this week in the state's House would allow licensed nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurse midwives to perform aspiration abortions on women in their first trimester. Four other states currently have similar regulations.

California State Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), who introduced the bill, said she was worried by the current tenor of the national conversation on abortion. "I think it's a step backward. I think it's targeting women and women's healthcare as something that is bad, when in actuality we need more and better health care, not less," she said. "We would like to see that negative conversation turn around and emphasize women's health and safe early access to reproductive services."

She said the tone of the discussion in her state has been markedly different.

"When we see other states rolling back access to reproductive health, the bills that we've seen in Virginia and other states requiring ultrasounds and lectures from the doctor to the woman -- those are not policies I support, nor do I think the majority of the California legislature supports those kinds of policies," Kehoe said.

The opinions of state legislatures increasingly determine the degree of a woman's access to abortion, said Elizabeth Nash, who manages state issues for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that monitors and supports abortion rights.

"A state may have anywhere from zero to one or two laws around restricting access, all the way up to a dozen or more," said Nash. "Your access to reproductive healthcare depends greatly on where you live."

Such differences aren't lost on Josh Brahm, the director of education at Right to Life of Central California, who moved to the state from Georgia.

"Georgia is definitely a more conservative state politically, which means they have the opportunity to pass a lot of pro-life bills that wouldn't have a shot in California," Brahm said in an email.

California voters have a history of opposing measures to restrict abortion. While 37 other states require parental notification or consent for minors to have abortions, Californians have rejected such notification measures three times in seven years. A fourth proposal is likely to make the 2012 ballot.

"If we continue to fail to pass a bill like that, I'm not convinced pro-life groups should continue spending money on legislative efforts in California, at least for the time being," Brahm said.

He added, "I think the short term goal in California, and perhaps every other state, should be to engage pro-choice people on the idea level."

Several other state legislatures, primarily Democratic-leaning ones, have contingents making efforts to secure abortion rights, among them the pro-choice advocates in New York who are pushing a measure that would effectively codify Roe v. Wade in state law.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers in Washington state also sought to expand access to abortion this year, proposing a bill that would have made the state the first in the nation to require that all insurance plans include abortion coverage unless they claimed a conscience exemption.

The bill passed the state House but died in the state Senate during a procedural fight over the state's budget. Supporters said they believe they would have had the votes to pass the measure, and they expect to reintroduce it in 2013.

Washington State Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-Tacoma), a sponsor of the bill, said the trend toward increasing restrictions elsewhere in the country had energized abortion rights supporters in her state.

"It's started to make people, and women in particular, realize how important it is that we push on reproductive health issues," Jinkins said. "Every time folks think, 'We have legal protections, everything's fine, we're going to be fine,' then this kind of stuff happens across the nation and people start to see how quickly you can lose those protections."

Jinkins said that uncertainty at the national level reinforced the need for states to take action.

"There's a huge attack on women's reproductive health," she said. "Everything from our access to simple birth control to the right to choose to have an abortion if that's what you decide to do ... It does make it more clear why in states like Washington, where we've had a 40-year history of protecting women's rights, why we need to make sure that we keep on doing it."

Efforts like those in California and Washington are still unusual, said Nash.

"We haven't seen much action around those proactive issues, around family planning, for the past couple years precisely because there has been a lot of defensive work that has had to be done at the state level," she said. But she said that public outcry this year could mark a step toward change.

"Certainly this year we have seen push-back in ways we were not seeing in 2011 or 2010," she said.

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- As many states debate and pass new restrictions on abortion, often against increasing resistance, a small number of others are considering moves in the opposite direction, weighing legis...
WASHINGTON -- As many states debate and pass new restrictions on abortion, often against increasing resistance, a small number of others are considering moves in the opposite direction, weighing legis...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 544
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Connie Murray
08:07 AM on 05/03/2012
Interesting that it is rich, primarily Democratic states that want to expand abortion access while poor, GOP states want to end access to abortion. The rich states want more rights for women while the poor states want to take those rights away from women. And its not just abortion, its birth control too. Now why would a poor state want to force women to have unplanned pregnancies? It hurts the economy to bring more poor children who eat up more tax dollars. Just from an economic point of view, you'd think poor states would look to allow more birth control and more abortions so they'd have less welfare/social programs to fund but they don't. Crazy.
03:47 PM on 04/29/2012
This is why my home is forever in San Francisco. We do not want to engage in any discussion with anti-choicers . They are not "pro-life". Life includes women who are already born. They are anti-choice- seeking to prevent women from making their own choices.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tail-Kinker
mod-con g33k, outdoors-gal, NRA member & patriot
07:26 AM on 04/25/2012
hopefully, the sheeple will start to wake up and see that the eroding of our indivudal rights to decide our own healthcare choices, should not be left up to religious-based moral codes by predominantly male politicians. Yet, these same self-appointed congressional moral super heroes, haven't the ability to keep their own promiscuity under control, not to mention the self-serving laws enacted to allow them to gain power and money, at the expense of the citizens.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vin Rohm
Retired Analyst
04:25 AM on 04/25/2012
Honestly, I don't understand the Religious Right's objections to abortion. The Bible is clearly pro-choice (or manically pro-abortion when it comes to God's presumed enemies). For example, Numbers 5:11-31 contains an abortion ritua, to be done when infidelity is suspected of the wifel. If a husband thinks his wife cheated, but lacks the legal proof (the witness of two men), he is to take his wife to the high priest. The priest whips up a magical concoction with water and the dust and ashes from around the altar and makes her drink it. If she is innocent, nothing happens. If she cheated on her husband though, she becomes ill and the child of infidelity is aborted.

But then, have they ever paid attention to what the bible says?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
batulia73
Striving to keep my pentagram upright.
05:30 AM on 04/25/2012
I love it! I love using references from the Bible to prove Christians wrong! Thanks for that info.

Fanned and faved.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
06:44 PM on 04/25/2012
I wish I could fan you twice, Vin. I too, have read the bible, unlike most christians. And because of that, again, unlike most christians, I know the precise location of the garden of Eden. The directions are right there in their own bible but for them it is a mystery because when they open that book and read it they shut their minds off as if merely reading the words will make them holy; but understanding them would be some kind of taboo.

Although I would dispute your interpretation to the extent that I see two possible interpretations for that passage. The operative verse is #28. The Gideon's Bible in front of me puts it like this: "And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed."

This means one of two things. Either, as in your interpretation, the potion the priest concocted, called "bitter water" in the Gideon's, is an abortificant. Or, it could be that the bitter water is a poison that ruins a woman's internal sexual organs and prevents her from ever conceiving in the future. They were into pretty final punishments in those days, eye for an eye and such. When they cut out your eye you can't get it back. Permanent. I think either is a valid interpretation.
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
01:54 AM on 04/25/2012
Like it or not, there as some times when the least bad decision is an abortion. The government needs to stay out of this painful decision.
To earn the title of pro-life, people must work to improve life for those already born--you know, social justice and all that messy stuff Jesus was so big on. Otherwise, they are simply nosy, obnoxious, Mrs. Grundy, totalitarian, and anti-choice.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:00 AM on 04/25/2012
been. So you think Jesus would be pro-abortion???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vin Rohm
Retired Analyst
04:39 AM on 04/25/2012
If he accepted the Law of Torah he would have been. See Numbers 5:11-31.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
06:47 PM on 04/25/2012
If he actually read the bible, maybe.
12:14 AM on 04/25/2012
it's ironic that the GOP insists on regulating women's access to all possible healthcare options when the party's platform is to get the government out of the healthcare system
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
06:48 PM on 04/25/2012
They're hypocrites on every other issue, why not this one too?
photo
kaykaythere
Game of Global ThermoNuclear NukeATroll anyone?
10:36 PM on 04/24/2012
So many women/men have forgotten Pre Roe v Wade. I want to remind them of those days.

Just like the Pro-birth crowd likes to show their little films to horrify, I would love to have the same opportunity to show THEM the reality I have seen while in Iraq, certain portions of Africa and elsewhere. Films where women have gone to a "surgeon - who is usually some older female with a metal "instrument". They arrive bleeding, seriously ill from infection. Village "herbalists" and their strange toxic brews which are basically poisons. Women who have their spouses or a group of females beat her so badly she loses the fetus.
And then there are the women who just kill themselves, or who have a family member kill them.

We are slowly turning back to a time when we will see these atrocities again.

In case you are wondering, these are things I have personally seen not 40 years ago, but over the last 10-15 years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shaktiqueen
Persephone Says.
06:35 PM on 04/25/2012
Thank you for the hard hitting dose of reality. You are right. We must never forget.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:34 PM on 04/24/2012
Good! Find a march near you on 4/28/12 Tell legislators you've had enough! Find a rally or march @ unitewomen.org
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
06:51 PM on 04/25/2012
Sorry I'm ignorant. Is 4/28 a particular anniversary or is it just a date chosen where we can all show our support? I'm just trying to find a way to set it in my memory so I remember it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:01 PM on 04/24/2012
Remember to call out the Zealots on this when the Blog about their rights and will to us political attack units of their churches

Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.

And as framed in Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully argued essay titled

------>“Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,”

the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid out reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison’s argument became a fundamental piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the secular state that “should be as familiar to students of American history as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” as Susan Jacoby has written in Freethinkers, her excellent history of American secularism.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html#ixzz1t0PaCCjb
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CASSIE60
Think before you speak. Read before you think
07:45 PM on 04/24/2012
Forcing women to have babies from incest, rape, and lack of access birth control is no different from, when women were stoned to death for not being Males.....
photo
Sabrae
Talk to the paws.
08:54 PM on 04/24/2012
And you have a brand new fan. :)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
forestlady
12:25 AM on 04/25/2012
VERY well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CASSIE60
Think before you speak. Read before you think
07:37 PM on 04/24/2012
At least there are some states that live in the present....... the 21st Century.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:27 PM on 04/24/2012
Most of the women I know who have had abortions have had them because they weren't using contraceptive and had an "accident". You should have to pay for that "accident". Its cheaper than having a child. If you can prove you were raped or forced to have unprotected sex then yes it should be covered by your health insurance just like any other disease you didn't want. But I think birth control should be free, every form of birth control...condoms, pills, shots etc. I also think women should get free paps and boob tests once a year. WE are the givers of life, our plumbing is much more complicated than that of male species..they only have a small brain down there..we have a command center. Please politians stay out of our command centers, you can barely find your a** with both hands.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janthewordnerd
08:45 PM on 04/24/2012
It should be covered by your health insurance for any reason whatsoever. You don't need to "prove" anything. Abortion is one of two legal, customary treatments for the medical condition known as pregnancy. The other treatment is gestation and childbirth, which IS covered by insurance, and costs much, much more.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:58 PM on 04/24/2012
Really hmmm you make the choice to have unprotected sex get pregnant and your health insurance should have to pay for you to remedy your mistake? I totally think it is a woman's right to make the choice to have or not have a child without a doubt. What I have problem with is someone else having to pay for that mistake. Insurance wont pay for my husbands mri but you want them to cover your mistake? I think first insurance needs to cover real medical procedures. If you cant afford to pay for your abortion then you better take responsibility for your reproduction system.
photo
kaykaythere
Game of Global ThermoNuclear NukeATroll anyone?
10:08 PM on 04/24/2012
And many other women are very responsible and get pregnant because birth control failed.

Not an accident.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:43 PM on 04/24/2012
Once again..I made it very clear..unprotected, no contraceptive etc. if your using contraceptive and get pregnant that is now a medical condition of not fault of your own since you were being responsible. Just like people who are health nuts and come down with a life threatening disease, they were being responsible for their health. No fault of their own, they shouldn't be turned down by their health insurance for a procedure that could save their life yet it happens and now were talking about abortion being covered willy nilly. Do we want abortion to continue to be legal, then lets not nit pick. When you start to ask others to pay for a lack of responsibility then it is going to be debated and we women may not win. All it takes is a rider in the insurance policy if your on birth control and become pregnant they will cover the procedure.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Rockett
07:12 PM on 04/24/2012
It appears that we will have to develop an underground railroad to end the slavery of women to republican misogynists. Pretty soon republicans will enact legislation to arrest any woman who has ever had an abortion, it appears.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Marble
10:44 PM on 04/24/2012
Georgia tried to criminalize any premature end of pregnancy that the woman couldn't prove was unaided by a doctor or other outside means. So if you couldn't prove your miscarriage was 100% naturally occuring they want to be able to prosecute you. Sicko's.
11:58 PM on 04/24/2012
You are talking about the book "The Handmaids Tale" (perhaps unknowingly!)... by Margaret Atwood - good read.
"The Handmaid's Tale is set in the near future in the Republic of Gilead, a country formed within the borders of what was formerly the United States of America. It was founded by a racist, male chauvinist, nativist, theocratic-organized military coup as an ideologically driven response to the pervasive ecological, physical and social degradation of the country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Rockett
01:17 AM on 04/25/2012
I did not know that. Thanks.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
okaywhat
07:12 PM on 04/24/2012
A woman's body is hers alone. No government should be involved to make decisions that she should make!!
07:11 PM on 04/24/2012
As a senior citizen and as a woman I support the affordable care act. The public will lose so much if this act fails - an emphasis on preventive care, free preventive care, allowing pre-existing conditions, requiring women be charged the same as men for health insurance etc. The Republicans have yet to provide any alternative except a return to insurance company programs that were bankrupting us and prompted the need for the Affordable Care Act in the beginning. Vote straight Democratic and keep these Republican snake oil candidates out of office.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BrocBrock
10:19 PM on 04/24/2012
EXCELLELNT!! EVERY VOTER OR NON VOTER SHOULD READ YOUR COMMENT.
PRES. OBAMA MAY NEED TO US YOUR STATEMENT. I CERTAINLY AGREE!!