LINCOLN, Neb. -- Limiting women's access to abortion and other reproductive health care can have a devastating impact on state economies.
According to new data from the Institute for Women's Policy Research, restrictions on the books in Nebraska cost the state $1 billion annually in lost income, productivity and state revenues.
Andi Curry Grubb, Nebraska state director for Planned Parenthood North Central States, said women who cannot get care face economic challenges that can last a lifetime.
"Having access to safe and legal abortion, along with contraception and comprehensive sex education, all of those things together really allow people to better plan their futures and have control over their lives," Grubb asserted.
Nationwide, abortion bans and other restrictions are estimated to cost $105 billion per year.
Grubb pointed out while Nebraska doesn't look like Texas on paper yet -- where abortions are now banned after six weeks, before most women even realize they are pregnant -- the impacts of restrictions passed by lawmakers over the last decade have chipped away at a woman's right to access reproductive health care.
Nicole Mason, President and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said states with laws that restrict access to abortion, by imposing waiting periods or outright bans, disproportionately impact low-income women and women of color.
She explained restrictions hurt women by reducing their labor force participation, cutting into their earnings and increasing turnover.
"Lost earnings for women, women who have to cross state lines to access services," Mason explained. "For women, especially lower-income women, who may not have access to paid sick leave, or even health insurance, this also exacerbates the economic cost to them."
Grubb noted since the Texas law went into effect, people across Nebraska have come out in support of the right to safe and legal abortion.
"And we know that most Americans, including most Nebraskans, support access to this kind of care," Grubb stressed. "It's health care, that's all it is."
get more stories like this via email
The Alabama House and Senate both passed bills this week that would help people resume in vitro fertilization and provide legal protections for providers and patients in certain cases.
Senate Bill 159 and its companion House Bill 237 passed swiftly despite debates surrounding immunity and personhood.
While this is a positive step that allows families to resume treatments, said Heidi Miller, development manager for the reproductive-justice group Yellowhammer Fund, they're still concerned with the limited timeframe offered by the bills, including the one sponsored by Sen. Tim Melson, R-Florence.
"So, it just feels like a very limited solution to me, and that's our stance as an org, is that it feels like very much like a Band-Aid on open wounds," she said. "And so, that's how we've kind of been looking at those bills, because Sen. Melson's bill similarly would be repealed on April 1, 2025."
Both bills would apply retroactively and be automatically repealed next year, which Miller said could affect families again. This comes after IVF programs around the state stopped offering the service over concerns about legal consequences following a 8-1 state Supreme Court ruling. The court ruled that frozen embryos are protected by the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act that protects children, regardless of location.
Acknowledging the temporary nature of the bills, Miller argued that a short-term solution is insufficient for people seeking IVF treatments, which sometimes can take months or years. She said they're urging lawmakers to take further action to safeguard the accessibility of IVF.
"For us to get the constitutional amendment - the, quote, 'sanctity of life' constitutional amendment from 2018 - back for a re-vote in front of Alabama voters," she said, "because that would be the long-term solution that would really protect IVF access."
Unless the constitutional amendment is repealed, she said, it could supersede any other law or code, specifically where the term 'child' or 'minor child' is not defined. Miller said the Yellowhammer Fund has resources on its website for people who want to know more.
House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels, D-Huntsville, is sponsoring two measures, including a constitutional amendment, to clarify that an extrauterine embryo should not be considered an "unborn life" or "unborn child."
get more stories like this via email
Legislation in Massachusetts would ban some of the tactics used by "crisis pregnancy centers" to prevent people from having abortions.
Many of the centers have the words "medical" or "health" in their names, but do not offer licensed reproductive medical care.
Laurie Veninger, reproductive rights activist for the Indivisible Massachusetts Coalition, said the centers advertise "free" tests and ultrasounds and then pressure women into continuing their pregnancies.
"If they were a business, that would be curtailed by existing laws about deceptive advertising," Veninger pointed out. "But these places are religious nonprofits."
Veninger explained the crisis centers are often located near abortion providers, where anti-abortion activists try to lure people their way. Abortion opponents contend the centers simply offer confidential services to those facing unplanned pregnancies.
Following complaints, the Department of Public Health recently sent a memo to nearly 30 crisis pregnancy centers regarding state laws and patients' rights.
Veninger argued Massachusetts is "in the crosshairs" of what she calls "religious extremists," targeting states where abortion remains legal. She asserted many low-income people are being deceived, with potentially dangerous outcomes.
"Some of them have told us that they called up and made an appointment, because they thought they were going there for an abortion," Veninger observed. "And then when they got there, didn't get one, and then, they had to wait another week to get the appointment at the real clinic."
Veninger emphasized the extra week can mean the difference between having a medication abortion or requiring a surgical procedure. A class-action lawsuit claims a nurse at the Clearway Clinic in Worcester County failed to inform a patient her ultrasound showed an ectopic pregnancy, nearly costing the patient her life.
get more stories like this via email
Florida voters will soon have the opportunity to express their views on abortion rights at the ballot box.
After Gov. Ron DeSantis approved a law last year restricting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the committee Floridians Protecting Freedom launched a petition drive for what it calls a constitutional "Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion."
Sarah Parker, president of Women's Voices of Southwest Florida, part of a coalition supporting the petition, said they were excited to receive notice Friday from the Florida Department of State confirming they have successfully secured the necessary number of valid signatures.
"Right now we are just elated to actually have a number," Parker noted. "It sounds good too: 'Vote Yes on 4 in 2024.' We've got over 900,000 petitions and we're looking forward to the next steps, which is a standard process of going to the Supreme Court, and we're confident."
The Florida Supreme Court will now weigh in on the acceptability of the wording of the amendment. Attorney General Ashley Moody and other opponents have already delivered objections. In October, Moody expressed concerns the language could be an attempt to "hoodwink" voters, arguing the term "viability" has multiple interpretations.
Confusion on the matter is likely to persist, given the actions of the Republican-controlled Legislature, which not only approved additional abortion restrictions, but also has more pending restrictions yet to take effect. The implementation of a six-week limit hinges on the outcome of an ongoing legal battle about a 15-week abortion limit passed in 2022. The resolution of the 15-week case is also pending at the Florida Supreme Court.
Parker hopes voters will have the final say.
"It would mean to stop government interference with an abortion and health care," Parker explained. "What we're doing is kind of taking it back to the times before Dobbs got overturned, before Roe got overturned."
Part of the amendment language states, "No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider."
get more stories like this via email