CLARIFICATION: Updated 10/26/2020 at 3:30pm MT to include more links and clarify the debate over the constitutional versus legislative process.
The battle rages on after last month's last-minute move in the Pennsylvania Senate to include anti-abortion language in a budget bill, as well as other constitutional amendments that could restrict voting access.
In about a month, the Pennsylvania General Assembly will revisit a controversial proposal with five separate amendments to the state Constitution. Groups that oppose Senate Bill 106 are using the next few weeks to rally their forces.
SB 106 says "This constitution does not grant the right to tax-payer funded abortion or any other right relating to abortion."
The amendment itself does not restriction abortion or make it illegal, however it would allow state legislators to make future decisions which opponents say would most likely open the door to restrictions.
Laura Nevitt - executive director of the Keystone Progress Education Fund - said in the meantime, groups like hers are reaching out to voice concerns about SB 106, particularly the prospect of an abortion ban.
"The work now is just about educating people about what this constitutional amendment actually would do," said Nevitt, "why it is not good for the people who live in Pennsylvania, and making every effort and attempt possible to prevent it from getting on the ballot."
The
Pennsylvania House Republican Caucus describes SB 106 as a "Constitutional Clarification," and says it "does not change current law," but leaves the decision about whether the state will allow abortions up to the General Assembly.
In a
Muhlenberg College poll mid-September, 30% of Pennsylvania voters polled said they think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases; 61% percent said it should be legal in all or most cases. Only 8% said they are undecided.
Democrats say GOP lawmakers are using the constitutional amendment process because they know Gov. Tom Wolf would veto legislation about such hot-button issues as abortion and voting access.
The Senate Republican Caucus counters that Pennsylvania voters - through their elected officials - should be allowed to decide these issues.
But this method also means the resolution has to survive two legislative sessions before the amendments could be put on the ballot for a public vote. The second session began Sept. 12.
The
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape also strongly opposes SB 106 and predicts if it's passed, it would be used to block individuals' access to abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.
Donna Greco - public policy and legislative affairs director for the coalition - said their view is that it violates bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. But for now, she said, a person still has the right to get an abortion.
"Currently, abortion is still legal and protected in Pennsylvania," said Greco, "as well as the range of reproductive healthcare, contraception, emergency contraception. So right now, those services are still legal here throughout the Commonwealth."
In the meantime,
Gov. Wolf already filed a lawsuit to protect reproductive rights in the Commonwealth. He holds that the amendments are "constitutionally invalid."
Disclosure: Keystone Progress Education Fund contributes to our fund for reporting on Civic Engagement, Energy Policy, Environment, Health Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Illinois serves as a crucial access point for abortion services and sees the most out-of-state patients in the country.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has seen the largest increase in abortion services than any other state. About 25% of its patients are from out-of-state.
Julie Uhal, program manager of strategic initiatives and impact measurement for Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said they planned for an initial surge but sustained high patient volume has strained their resources. She explained they saw up to a dozen out-of-state patients per month before Roe was overturned.
"We're seeing 800, 900, 1,000 out-of-state patients every single month," Uhal reported. "That hasn't changed. That's remained constant for three years now because abortion bans don't stop the need for abortion care. They just make it more difficult for people to access."
Uhal pointed out many out-of-state patients are uninsured or have insurance in other states which cannot be used in Illinois. Combined with rising health care costs, lower reimbursement rates and threats to Medicaid, she said Planned Parenthood faces financial difficulties, which have already forced them to close four clinics this year.
Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of sexual and reproductive health care in the state. More than 40% of local patients use Medicaid to cover the cost of services, which in addition to abortion care includes birth control, cancer screenings, STI treatment and prenatal and gender-affirming care. Without Medicaid funding, Planned Parenthood of Illinois said it would need about $16 million a year to continue providing services at its current rate.
"A lot of people don't realize that many Planned Parenthood clinics are in areas that are otherwise health care provider deserts for access," Uhal emphasized. "For a lot of people, going in for a birth control appointment might be the only time they see a doctor that year."
Uhal stressed the burden of accessing common health care continues to be placed on the patient since states banned abortion services. The recent Supreme Court ruling which set a precedent to allow states to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid will only worsen the burden. She added helping patients to navigate emotional and logistic barriers to care has been just as important as providing them with care.
"One in four people that can get pregnant will have an abortion at some point in their lifetime," Uhal explained. "So it's really important for people to know that they're not alone. There shouldn't be as much shame and stigma surrounding this as there is."
Planned Parenthood of Illinois opened the Carbondale Health Center in 2023 to help meet the increased demand for services, particularly for patients traveling from the South. About 90% of patients there come from out-of-state.
get more stories like this via email
Abortion rights advocates in Kentucky are concerned as the Department of Health and Human Services has revoked a policy requiring hospitals to provide abortion care in emergency situations.
Known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the rule offered federal protection for the procedure, particularly in Kentucky and other red states with near total abortion bans.
Tamarra Wieder, Kentucky state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said stripping away protection will be catastrophic for women in rural counties who already face barriers to care.
"We know in a state like Kentucky that people have already turned up at emergency rooms because of our abortion restrictions," Wieder pointed out. "Doctors have been forced to wait until patients were at life-threatening situations, sepsis, hemorrhage, before they are able to provide care."
According to the National Institutes of Health, pregnancy complications are the fifth-most common reason women of reproductive age visit the emergency room.
Weider added rural communities across the Commonwealth suffer the nation's worst family planning and sexual health outcomes and continue to struggle with access to safe and convenient obstetric and reproductive health care.
"I think it's really important to note that 57% of Kentucky's rural hospitals no longer offer obstetric services, 57%," Weider emphasized.
Kentucky's Human Life Protection Act, passed by lawmakers in 2019, banned all abortions except to save the life of the mother and it went into effect immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. The same year, voters in the Commonwealth rejected a ballot measure which would have amended the state constitution to explicitly deny the right to an abortion.
get more stories like this via email
Arizona doctors have filed a lawsuit to overturn a set of restrictions which they argue interfere with access to abortion care. Arizona voters last year passed Proposition 139 which enshrined the fundamental right to an abortion, up until fetal viability, in the state's constitution.
Gail Deady, senior attorney, Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case, explained that the abortion rights that were secured because of the measure do not go into effect automatically, and existing laws that limit access must be challenged before they can be struck down under Prop 139.
"This lawsuit is intended to honor the will of the voters and it looks to strike down the most onerous abortion restrictions that are currently on the books in Arizona," she said. "The theory behind this case is that these restrictions do not have any medical basis, they do not make abortions safer."
Deady explained that some of the restrictions include forcing doctors to turn away patients if they suspect a fetal genetic diagnosis is the reason for a patient seeking care, requiring patients to wait at least 24 hours before obtaining abortion care, and banning the use of telehealth for abortion. Mailing abortion pills - like mifepristone - is also prohibited. Conservative, anti-abortion advocates have expressed support for the restrictions, its's unclear if they'll oppose the lawsuit.
Deady argues many Arizonans are facing negative consequences as a result of the laws. She adds that it also means a delay in receiving the care most Arizonans supported last year, and added that Arizona has what she calls a "two-trip" law which requires patients make two separate visits to a clinic.
"Just to hear mandatory, state-scripted information about abortion that often is not medically correct, it spreads misinformation and is designed to make people feel ashamed of the decision that they've made which has now been recognized as a constitutional right in Arizona," she explained.
Deady said her organization is currently advocating for the restrictions to be blocked during litigation. The state attorney generals' office is currently examining the complaint.
get more stories like this via email