NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A judge in Nashville has ruled that as Tennessee flexes its power to temporarily ban non-emergency medical procedures during the coronavirus pandemic, it doesn't have the right to block a woman's access to abortion services.

The decision affirms a lower court ruling blocking an April 8 executive order by Gov. Bill Lee that included abortions on a list of non-emergency procedures.

Aimee Lewis, vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi, says, while most women's wellness exams have been postponed, terminating a pregnancy is a time-sensitive procedure.

"Any delays have a possibility of imposing greater health risks for the pregnant woman," she stresses. "They could result in having to get an abortion at a later gestational age, which has more risks."

Lewis adds Tennessee's clinics have modified their operations and implemented new rules to protect both staff and patients from exposure to the coronavirus.

The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and other groups. The state has appealed the decision.

Tennessee's mandatory 48-hour waiting period already requires women seeking abortions to make two trips to a clinic. Lewis points out that potentially increases their odds of being exposed to the virus.

"By having to get in their car, or get on a bus or, you know, get child care -- all the things that are involved in that," she stresses.

Lewis emphasizes that, since the start of the pandemic, the region's Planned Parenthood clinics have seen no decrease in the number of women seeking to terminate pregnancies, or in patients seeking STI testing.

"The fact is, no one stops needing sexual and reproductive health care just because there's a public health crisis," she states. "And we're continuing to take care of those patients who come in our doors."

Tennessee is one of a handful of states that have pushed to limit abortion access during the pandemic, and similar lawsuits are ongoing in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma.


get more stories like this via email

Women and health care providers testified before the Human Rights Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., in Atlanta this week, detailing the dangerous effects of Georgia's six-week abortion ban.

Nearly two years after the law went into effect, women are recounting how they were forced to continue high-risk pregnancies or seek critical medical care out of state.

Mackenzie Kulik, who lives in Atlanta, said complications in her second trimester did not qualify for an exemption under the law, leaving her with no choice but to leave Georgia to receive the care she needed.

"If I had not been able to travel out of state, I would have been forced to carry a nonviable pregnancy until the baby died in utero," Kulik explained. "Or I would have developed an infection that threatened my health enough to qualify for an intervention. Or I would have had to deliver a baby, only to watch her suffer."

The hearing brought attention to how Georgia's abortion restrictions have limited medical options for people facing pregnancies with severe complications.

Yasmein Ziyad, a resident of Morrow, testified about her experience. After being denied care during a miscarriage, Ziyad said she experienced severe pain and complications. She told the committee her doctor feared the legal consequences of performing an abortion.

"I didn't have to go through this," Ziyad emphasized. "These laws created so much fear and confusion that I couldn't get the care I needed, that would have spared me so much pain and suffering. As a result of what I went through, we have given up on hopes of ever being pregnant again."

Medical professionals, including OB/GYNs, echoed the concerns, warning the ban is increasing maternal mortality rates and putting people's health at risk.

The hearing comes as the story of Amber Nicole Thurman gains national attention. She died two years ago after delays in care due to the state's restrictive laws. Her death was later ruled preventable by 10 doctors.


get more stories like this via email

A bill to bolster protections for in vitro fertilization treatments failed in the U.S. Senate Tuesday and as the political debate plays out, a Minnesota mother hopes her experience opens more eyes to the challenges some people face in expanding their families.

For the second time this year, Senate Republicans blocked efforts to put in place a nationwide right to IVF. The outcome is likely to get more attention on the campaign trail this fall.

Miraya Gran, an infertility advocate and IVF mom from Bloomington, said she and her husband were both diagnosed with infertility. They are now proud parents of a daughter through IVF but there were many hoops to jump through.

"Infertility is a disease and like any other disease, it is emotionally and physically exhausting," Gran pointed out. "When your disease is not covered by insurance, there's a financial component added on top of it, which is equally exhausting."

She noted the couple underwent many tests, took out a second mortgage and relied on crowdfunding to pay for the IVF. Gran is now an advocate of guaranteed health coverage for IVF treatments in Minnesota.

In Congress, Senate Republicans said they support IVF but accused Democrats of a "political stunt" by bringing it to a vote. Democrats contended the outcome aligns with conservative ideals in curtailing reproductive freedoms.

The issue received renewed focus when Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump expressed his support for IVF, even though some of his voter base objects because of religious beliefs.

Gran acknowledged people have their right to their opinions about an issue but those beliefs should not come at the expense of access to reproductive care.

"It's isolating," Gran explained. "Our society has created a taboo around it for so long."

Although the U.S. Senate vote failed, Gran noted it is encouraging to see policymakers debate the topic openly. Minnesota Gov. and Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz has frequently called for expanded access to IVF, citing his family's struggle with infertility. A Minnesota bill stalled earlier this year amid debate over costs. It is expected to see another push in 2025.


get more stories like this via email

Abortion care restrictions in North Dakota are expected to be lifted in the near future, following a court ruling on Thursday.

A state judge said North Dakota's ban on the procedure violates the state Constitution. It's been part of a wave of abortion laws stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Dobbs case.

Prior to this week's decision, the state's lone abortion provider moved its clinic just across the border to Minnesota.

Dr. Ana Tobiasz, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Bismarck, said physicians in hospital settings had been weighed down by uncertainties about what to do in cases of medical exceptions under the law.

"We have been made to choose between saving a patient's life and possibly facing jail time," Tobiasz explained.

Tobiasz, a plaintiff in the case, said while there are no more abortion clinics in North Dakota, hospitals can at least step in during pregnancy complications without legal ramifications. Advocates said some procedural steps are needed before the ruling goes into effect. North Dakota's attorney general criticized the opinion, vowing to file an appeal.

Groups behind the legal challenge to North Dakota's ban say while Thursday's outcome provides hope, it would be hard to quickly build up a system of abortion care within state boundaries.

Meetra Mehdizadeh, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in the meantime, women around the state at least have some peace of mind about their reproductive care needs.

"The court has reaffirmed the fundamental right to make personal and private health care decisions without interference from the government," Mehdizadeh asserted.

The Republican-led Legislature reconvenes early next year, and depending on what happens with the expected appeal, the plaintiffs have urged lawmakers to let this week's decision stand. The group North Dakota Right to Life said the judge in this case unilaterally issued a ruling which, in their words, "dismantles critical protections for the unborn and vulnerable women across our state."


get more stories like this via email