brave [not!] new [not!] world

“…the “central paradox” in the debate over the future of abortion: [14] States with the most restrictive abortion policies also show the weakest maternal and child health outcomes and are least likely to invest in at-risk populations.” The Commonwealth Fund, March 8

“In Louisiana, lawmakers are considering a proposal to classify ending a pregnancy at any point from the moment of fertilization as homicide. And the Idaho State Legislature may hold hearings on outlawing emergency contraceptives…” NYT, May 11

“Arizona enacted an abortion ban in cases of genetic indication, and South Dakota banned abortion if the fetus has Down syndrome.” Guttmacher Institute, December 16, 2021

“Most of the 21 states with laws on the books that would “snap back” abortion restrictions if the court overturns Roe fall into the bottom half of state rankings on a wide array of measures tracking the well-being of children and families, including childhood poverty, low birth weight and premature births, access to health insurance for low-income mothers, availability of prenatal care and the share of kids enrolled in early childhood education… ” CNN, December 14, 2021

“Six states banned providers from mailing the abortion medication to patients, and seven states either required the provider and patient to meet in person or banned the use of telehealth.” Guttmacher Institute, December 16, 2021

“Arkansas also passed legislation in 2021 that would make abortion in the state an unclassified felony unless a procedure is undertaken to save the life of a pregnant woman.” Newsweek, May 20, 2021

“…in Alabama, legislation signed in 2019 bans the procedure at any stage of a pregnancy, with doctors facing the possibility of life imprisonment for performing one.” Newsweek, May 20, 2021

“Lawmakers in Missouri weighed legislation early this year that would allow individuals to sue anyone helping a patient cross state lines for an abortion (…) In Texas, a law passed last year made it illegal to ship medication for self-managed abortion, including across state lines” The Guardian,  5 May

 

put the data aside [SCOTUS v. evidence]

Reposted from a Nature editorial:

(…) Moving in the opposite direction runs contrary to 50 years of research from around the world showing that abortion access is a crucial component of health care and is important for women’s equal participation in society. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear Mississippi’s case last year, Nature covered some of this evidence, submitted to the court by US scientific societies and more than 800 US researchers in public health, reproductive health, social sciences and economics, to the court in advance of the case’s hearing in December.

Some outcomes of outlawing abortion can be predicted by what’s known. Researchers expect overall infant and maternal health to decline in the United States in the wake of abortion bans, because more unintended pregnancies will be brought to term. Unintended pregnancies are associated with an increased risk of health problems for babies, and often for mothers, for several reasons — including reduced prenatal care.

Maternal health is also expected to decline overall. One straightforward reason is that the risks of dying from pregnancy-related causes are much greater than the risks of dying because of a legal abortion. A predicted rise in maternal mortality among Black women in the United States is particularly distressing, because the rate is already unacceptably high. In one study, sociologist Amanda Stevenson at the University of Colorado Boulder modelled a hypothetical situation in which abortions are banned throughout the United States, and found that the lifetime risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes for non-Hispanic Black women would rise from 1 in 1,300 to 1 in 1,000.

One claim made by abortion opponents in this case is that abortions no longer benefit women and even cause them harm, but dozens of studies contradict this. In just one, health economist Sarah Miller at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and her colleagues assessed around 560 women of comparable age and financial standing who sought abortions. They found that, five years after pregnancy, women who were denied the procedure had experienced a substantial increase in debt, bankruptcies, evictions and other dire financial events — whereas the financial standing of women who had received an abortion had remained stable or improved. A primary reason that women give for wanting an abortion is an inability to afford to raise the child, and this study suggests that they understand their own situations.

Abortion bans will extract an unequal toll on society. Some 75% of women who choose to have abortions are in a low income bracket and nearly 60% already have children, according to one court brief submitted ahead of the December hearing and signed by more than 150 economists. Travelling across state lines to receive care will be particularly difficult for people who do not have the funds for flights or the ability to take time off work, or who struggle to find childcare.

Unfortunately, some of the justices seem to be disregarding these data. At the December hearing, Julie Rikelman, a lawyer at the non-profit Center for Reproductive Rights, headquartered in New York City, brought up studies presented in the economists’ brief; Roberts interrupted her and suggested “putting that data aside”. In the leaked draft opinion, Alito also elides a body of research on abortion policy, writing that it’s “hard for anyone — and in particular for a court — to assess” the effect of the right to abortion on women’s lives.

Such an attitude suggests that the justices see research as secondary to the question of whether the US Constitution should protect abortion. But the outcome of this ruling isn’t an academic puzzle. The Supreme Court needs to accept that the consensus of research, knowledge and scholarship — the evidence on which societies must base their laws — shows how real lives hang in the balance. Already, the United States claims the highest rate of maternal and infant mortality among wealthy nations. Should the court overturn Roe v. Wade, these grim statistics will only get worse.

America after Roe

Le Pen in her own [damning] words

Je pense également qu’il faut cesser de rembourser l’avortement. Il existe suffisamment de moyens de contraception aujourd’hui. La X, 14/02/2011

…l’avortement n’est pas interdit en Pologne. Le Monde, 31/03/2021

La peine de mort doit exister dans notre arsenal juridique. Sud Ouest, 08/01/2015

Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél d’Hiv. RTL, 09/04/2017

Les migrants, c’est comme les éoliennes. Tout le monde est d’accord pour qu’il y en ait mais personne ne veut que ce soit à côté de chez lui. RTL, 14/04/2019

Clairement, la victoire de Donald Trump est une pierre supplémentaire dans l’émergence d’un nouveau monde, qui a pour vocation à remplacer un ordre ancien. BBC, 13/11/2016

Je ne crois absolument pas qu’il y a eu une annexion illégale: il y a eu un référendum, les habitants de Crimée souhaitaient rejoindre la Russie. RMC, 03/01/2017

La Crimée n’a jamais été ukrainienne. Izvestia, 17/01/2017

Le combat contre les éoliennes est un combat majeur, parce que les éoliennes sont une véritable catastrophe, visuelle, écologique, économique. Le Monde, 26/05/2021

Il faut retrouver la maîtrise de nos frontières, et comme je crois que l’Union européenne est totalement impuissante à nous protéger, il faut passer un accord bilatéral avec l’Espagne et avec l’Italie pour permettre à nos marines de préserver nos eaux territoriales et repousser dans les eaux internationales les migrants qui voudraient entrer en Europe. Le Point, 25/02/2011

Dear Prosecutor General [AI call]

Public Prosecutor General, Mr. Zbigniew Tadeusz Ziobro
ul. Postępu 3
02–676 Warszawa
Poland
Email: biuro.podawcze@pk.gov.pl

Dear Public Prosecutor General,

I am writing to express my deep concern about charges brought against human rights defender Justyna Wydrzyńska that stem solely from her activism to support access to safe abortion. Justyna has been charged with ‘helping in the performance of an abortion’ on the basis of Article 152.2 of the Polish Penal Code, and ‘possession of unauthorised drugs with the aim of introducing them to the market’ under Article 124 of the Pharmaceutical Law. If convicted, she faces up to three years in prison. I am deeply concerned that charges against Justyna appear to be brought in reprisal for her activism and her legitimate efforts to defend access to safe and legal abortions in Poland. Justyna is a doula and an activist who has been outspoken about her own abortion. She is one of the founders of Abortion Dream Team, an activist collective in Poland that campaigns against abortion stigma and provides evidence–based and non–biased abortion–related information, including on World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance on safe self–managed medical abortion.

I would like to stress that laws that restrict access to abortions in Poland –only allowed when the health or the life of the pregnant woman is at risk or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest – and criminalise those who provide or help with an abortion put pregnant people’s health and lives at risk and violate Poland’s obligations under international human rights law and standards. It is precisely because of these harmful laws, that Justyna’s support to people whose health needs have been neglected and denied by the Polish health care system are crucial and can save lives. Her work should be applauded, not criminalised. Justyna’s efforts are part of a growing movement of individuals in Poland and around the world who show solidarity and compassion, while helping others to access the sexual and reproductive health and rights they are entitled to. Poland must take urgent action to ensure that abortion is fully decriminalised and that people defending sexual and reproductive rights, including access to safe abortion, are able to carry out their legitimate work without fear of reprisals or intimidation.

I therefore urge you to immediately drop all charges against human rights defender Justyna Wydrzyńska and refrain from bringing any other charges with the intention to criminalise her or other activists for providing lifesaving support to people seeking an abortion.

Yours sincerely,