CHICAGO -- Reproductive health providers in Illinois are preparing for an influx of patients if the 6-3 conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Ten states currently have abortion "trigger laws", meaning abortion bans or restrictions that are unenforceable now but designed to go into effect if constitutional precedent changes.

If trigger laws in surrounding sttes go into effect, said Brandi Collins-Calhoun, senior movement engagement associate for the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, local Illinois abortion funds would be stretched thin with more out-of-state patients -- who also would have travel and lodging expenses as well as lost wages.

"We're seeing clinics require a two-week quarantine for out-of-state patients right now because of COVID," she said. "So with Illinois, they'll be well over their capacity of funding and support once the trigger laws go into effect."

She said the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy is preparing a resource toolkit to direct more philanthropic support to reproductive-rights funds in states such as Illinois, where policymakers have taken steps to protect access without relying on the Roe decision.

In 2017, Illinois lawmakers repealed a trigger law and passed a requirement for Medicaid to cover pregnancy termination. Last year, they passed the Reproductive Health Act, guaranteeing reproductive rights as fundamental rights.

Brigid Leahy, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Illinois, said providers are figuring out how to coordinate with affiliates in neighboring states "so that patients can be referred, their medical records are following them, and that there's a transition and a continuity of care when they go back home."

Leahy said the goal is to make sure women in Illinois and elsewhere can connect with the financial and emotional support they need in these situations.

"The burden of restrictions always falls on the lower-income people, people of color," she said, "people who are marginalized and already have challenges to access to health care."

Leahy credited local abortion funds with helping anyone who needs access to reproductive care, regardless of socioeconomic status.

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

In an unusual set of circumstances, the Nebraska Supreme Court will hear arguments in three lawsuits about the two abortion-related ballot initiatives, each of which had successful petition drives for the November ballot.

The first two lawsuits ask the Nebraska Supreme Court to rule to keep "Protect our Rights," which would legalize abortions until fetal viability, off the ballot. They claim it violates the state's "single subject" rule.

The third suit was filed in response to these on behalf of 29 Nebraska physicians who support Protect Our Rights.

Joshua Livingston, an attorney at the Koenig Dunne law firm in Omaha, which filed the lawsuit, said there are two types of access at stake.

"These physicians spend their days working with Nebraska patients, and they understand what Nebraskans need and what Nebraskans are asking for," Livingston explained. "Over 200,000 Nebraskans signed this petition asking for their voices to be heard. So the goal is access to health care and access to the ballot."

Livingston maintained the only fair outcome would require both initiatives to remain on the ballot or both to be removed. The "Protect Women and Children" initiative would prohibit abortions after the first trimester. The Nebraska legislature passed a 12-week abortion ban in 2023.

Livingston noted their position is that the "single-subject" rule would allow both initiatives to remain on the ballot.

"What we're really seeing is that the opponents to Protect Our Rights, the activist opponents, are scared of what the outcome is going to be," Livingston contended. "They're scared that if Nebraskans have the opportunity to expand abortion health care, they're going to vote in favor of that."

Livingston stressed Nebraska voters' right to be heard is really what is at stake here. He added they hope the Nebraska Supreme Court will rule before the Sept. 13 deadline for Nebraska ballots to be finalized.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, voters in six states have passed constitutional amendments to protect abortion rights.


get more stories like this via email