The bad news? They, and all other women seeking an abortion, will still have to undergo a forced, medically-unnecessary ultrasound and scramble to find a clinic that can perform an abortion.
The Education and Health Committee blocked a bill that would have denied paying for abortions for women who use medicaid and learn that the fetus has a life threatening anomaly, a move that would likely force those women to carry to term based on the high costs and low availability of a later abortion.
Sadly, the same committee also voted to table proposals offered by pro-choice legislators that would repeal the state’s new mandatory forced ultrasound law and the much-maligned TRAP legislation that will force most clinics in the state to undergo costly, unnecessary reconstruction and administrative changes, or close them down all together.
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
Anti-choicers shame parents facing a prenatal diagnosis and considering abortion, even though they don't back up their advocacy up with support. The pro-choice movement, on the other hand, often finds itself caught between defending abortion as an absolute personal right and suggesting that some lived potentials are worth more than others.
There’s only one reason anyone should ever get an abortion: Because that person is pregnant and does not want to be. As soon as anyone—whether they are pro- or anti-choice—starts bringing up qualifiers, exceptions, and scary monsters under the bed, things get problematic. They establish the seeds of a good abortion/bad abortion dichotomy, in which some abortions are deemed “worthier” than others.
And with the Zika virus reaching the United States and the stakes getting more tangible for many Americans, that arbitrary designation is on a lot of minds—especially where the possibility of developmentally impaired fetuses is concerned. As a result, people with disabilities are more often being used as a rhetorical device for or against abortion rights rather than viewed as actualized human beings.
Here’s what we know about Zika and pregnancy: The virus has been linked to microcephaly, hearing loss, impaired growth, vision problems, and some anomalies of brain development when a fetus is exposed during pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sometimes these anomalies are fatal, and patients miscarry their pregnancies. Sometimes they are not. Being infected with Zika is not a guarantee that a fetus will develop developmental impairments.
We need to know much, much more about Zika and pregnancy. At this stage, commonsense precautions when necessary like sleeping under a mosquito net, using insect repellant, and having protected sex to prevent Zika infection in pregnancy are reasonable, given the established link between Zika and developmental anomalies. But the panicked tenor of the conversation about Zika and pregnancy has become troubling.
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
In Latin America, where Zika has rampantly spread in the last few years, extremely tough abortion restrictions often deprive patients of reproductive autonomy, to the point where many face the possibility of criminal charges for seeking abortion. Currently, requests for abortions are spiking. Some patients have turned to services like Women on Web, which provides assistance with accessing medical abortion services in nations where they are difficult or impossible to find.
For pro-choice advocates in the United States, the situation in Latin America is further evidence of the need to protect abortion access in our own country. Many have specifically using Zika to advocate against 20-week limits on abortion—which are already unconstitutional, and should be condemned as such. Less than 2 percent of abortions take place after 20 weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The pro-choice community is often quick to defend these abortions, arguing that the vast majority take place in cases where the life of the patient is threatened, the fetus has anomalies incompatible with life, or the fetus has severe developmental impairments. Microcephaly, though rare, is an example of an impairment that isn’t diagnosable until late in the second trimester or early in the third, so when patients opt for termination, they run smack up against 20-week bans.
Thanks to the high profile of Zika in the news, fetal anomalies are becoming a talking point on both sides of the abortion divide: Hence the dire headlines sensationalizing the idea that politicians want to force patients to give birth to disabled children. The implication of leaning on these emotional angles, rather than ones based on the law or on human rights, is that Zika causes disabilities, and no one would want to have a disabled child. Some of this rhetoric is likely entirely subconscious, but it reflects internalized attitudes about disabled people, and it’s a dogwhistle to many in the disability community.
Anti-choicers, meanwhile, are leveraging that argument in the other direction, suggesting that patients with Zika will want to kill their precious babies because they aren’t perfect, and that therefore it’s necessary to clamp down on abortion restrictions to protect the “unborn.” Last weekend, for instance, failed presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) announced that he doesn’t support access to abortion for pregnant patients with the Zika virus who might, as a consequence, run the risk of having babies with microcephaly. Hardline anti-choicers, unsurprisingly, applauded him for taking a stand to protect life.
Both sides are using the wrong leverage in their arguments. An uptick in unmet abortion need is disturbing, yes—because it means that patients are not getting necessary health care. While it may be Zika exposing the issue of late, it’s a symptom, not the problem. Patients should be able to choose to get an abortion for whatever reason and at whatever time, and that right shouldn’t be defended with disingenuous arguments that use disability for cover. The issue with not being able to access abortions after 20 weeks, for example, isn’t that patients cannot access therapeutic abortions for fetuses with anomalies, but that patients cannot access abortions after 20 weeks.
The insistence from pro-choice advocates on justifying abortions after 20 weeks around specific, seemingly involuntary instances, suggests that so-called “late term abortions” need to be circumstantially defended, which retrenches abortion stigma. Few advocates seem to be willing to venture into the troubled waters of fighting for the right to abortions for any reason after 20 weeks. In part, that reflects an incremental approach to securing rights, but it may also betray some squeamishness. Patients don’t need to excuse their abortions, and the continual haste to do so by many pro-choice advocates makes it seem like a 20-week or later abortion is something wrong, something that might make patients feel ashamed depending on their reasons. There’s nothing shameful about needing abortion care after 20 weeks.
And, as it follows, nor is there ever a “bad” reason for termination. Conservatives are fond of using gruesome language targeted at patients who choose to abort for apparent fetal disability diagnoses in an attempt to shame them into believing that they are bad people for choosing to terminate their pregnancies. They use the specter of murdering disabled babies to advance not just social attitudes, but actual policy. Republican Gov. Mike Pence, for example, signed an Indiana law banning abortion on the basis of disability into law, though it was just blocked by a judge. Ohio considered a similar bill, while North Dakota tried to ban disability-related abortions only to be stymied in court. Other states require mandatory counseling when patients are diagnosed with fetal anomalies, with information about “perinatal hospice,” implying that patients have a moral responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term even if the fetus has impairments so significant that survival is questionable and that measures must be taken to “protect” fetuses against “hasty” abortions.
Conservative rhetoric tends to exceptionalize disability, with terms like “special needs child” and implications that disabled people are angelic, inspirational, and sometimes educational by nature of being disabled. A child with Down syndrome isn’t just a disabled child under this framework, for example, but a valuable lesson to the people around her. Terminating a pregnancy for disability is sometimes treated as even worse than terminating an apparently healthy pregnancy by those attempting to demonize abortion. This approach to abortion for disability uses disabled people as pawns to advance abortion restrictions, playing upon base emotions in the ultimate quest to make it functionally impossible to access abortion services. And conservatives can tar opponents of such laws with claims that they hate disabled people—even though many disabled people themselves oppose these patronizing policies, created to address a false epidemic of abortions for disability.
When those on either side of the abortion debate suggest that the default response to a given diagnosis is abortion, people living with that diagnosis hear that their lives are not valued. This argument implies that life with a disability is not worth living, and that it is a natural response for many to wish to terminate in cases of fetal anomalies. This rhetoric often collapses radically different diagnoses under the same roof; some impairments are lethal, others can pose significant challenges, and in other cases, people can enjoy excellent quality of life if they are provided with access to the services they need.
Many parents facing a prenatal diagnosis have never interacted with disabled people, don’t know very much about the disability in question, and are feeling overwhelmed. Anti-choicers want to force them to listen to lectures at the least and claim this is for everyone’s good, which is a gross violation of personal privacy, especially since they don’t back their advocacy up with support for disability programs that would make a comfortable, happy life with a complex impairment possible. The pro-choice movement, on the other hand, often finds itself caught between the imperative to defend abortion as an absolute personal right and suggesting that some lived potentials are worth more than others. It’s a disturbing line of argument to take, alienating people who might otherwise be very supportive of abortion rights.
It’s clearly tempting to use Zika as a political football in the abortion debate, and for conservatives, doing so is taking advantage of a well-established playbook. Pro-choicers, however, would do better to walk off the field, because defending abortion access on the sole grounds that a fetus might have a disability rings very familiar and uncomfortable alarm bells for many in the disability community.
This week on the campaign trail, both Democrats and Republicans at the top of the ticket weighed in on combatting Zika, and the Donald Trump campaign released a list of economic advisors that failed to include a single woman.
Kaine Calls for Congress to End Recess to Combat Zika
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, said that “Congress should not be in recess when Zika is advancing,” during a speech in Daytona Beach, Florida, on Tuesday.
The Virginia senator reportedly went on to urge Congress to “pass a $1.1 billion bill to combat Zika without what he called the ‘poison pill’ of anti-abortion language added by House Republicans,” according to the Orlando Sentinel.
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
Kaine had previously voiced support for ensuring that Zika funding could go to Planned Parenthood—something that the version of the Zika bill blocked by Democrats would have prevented. He was one of more than 40 Senate Democrats to add his name to a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) this week urging “both the Senate and the House back into session to pass a real and serious response to the burgeoning Zika crisis.”
Republicans criticized Kaine for not voting through that bill, accusing him of playing politics with the vote. “With new cases of the Zika virus being reported in Florida every day it is becoming clear that with his party-line vote to block crucial Zika funding Tim Kaine put his loyalty to the Democrat Party over the health of Sunshine State residents,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Natalie Strom in a statement to the Miami Herald. “He owes the hardworking people of Florida an explanation for his playing politics at their expense.”
Meanwhile, Republican presidential nominee Trump punted when asked by West Palm Beach’s CBS 12 about what his own plan to combat Zika would be if he was in office today.
“You have a great governor who’s doing a fantastic job, Rick Scott, on the Zika,” said Trump. “And it’s a problem. It’s a big problem. But I watch and I see. And I see what they’re doing with the spraying and everything else.”
“And I think he’s doing a fantastic job, and he’s letting everyone know exactly what the problem is and how to get rid of it. He’s going to have it under control, he probably already does,” added Trump.
When the reporter pressed Trump to discuss whether a special session should be held by Congress to review a bill to help combat Zika, Trump again said he would leave it up to the Florida governor. “I would say that it’s up to Rick Scott. It depends on what he’s looking to do because he really seems to have it under control in Florida,” said Trump.
No Women Made Trump’s List of Economic Advisors
Trump’s campaign released a list of economic advisors Friday who had one noticeable trait in common: they were all men.
“I am pleased that we have such a formidable group of experienced and talented individuals that will work with me to implement real solutions for the economic issues facing our country,” said Trump in a press release announcing the list. “I am going to be the greatest jobs President our country has ever seen. We will do more for the hardworking people of our country and Make America Great Again.”
According to the release, “Additional members of the Advisory Council will be added at later dates.” Many in the media have noted that in addition to the lack of women on the council, there are also very few actual economists.
The gender disparity in Trump’s current list of economic advisors mirrors a similar lack of representation of women discussing the topic in the media. According to a recent study conducted by media watchdog Media Matters for America, in the second quarter of 2016 women appeared as guests in less than 25 percent of analyzed evening and prime-time television discussions focused on the economy.
Though there is a gender gap in economics, 32.9 percent of those earning doctorates in the field are women, according to a 2014 report from the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession.
As the Washington Post’s Jim Tankersley and Jose A. DelReal reported, in contrast, Clinton’s “economic advisers include several longtime Democratic policy hands … and several women, including Ann O’Leary, Maya Harris, Neera Tanden, Heather Boushey and Laura D’Andrea Tyson.”
The lack of women on Trump’s list, however, isn’t surprising given that the Republican nominee was also unable to name a single woman he would consider appointing to his cabinet if elected, other than his daughter, when asked about it this week.
“Well, we have so many different ones to choose,” said Trump when asked which women he would name to his cabinet. “I can tell you everybody would say, ‘Put Ivanka in, put Ivanka in,’ you know that, right? She’s very popular, she’s done very well.”
“But there really are so many that are really talented people,” he continued without offering any serious candidates.
What Else We’re Reading
Though both House Speaker Ryan and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have both already offered Trump their endorsements, the Republican nominee said that he is “not quite there yet” on endorsing them.
During a CNN town hall event on Tuesday, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson admitted that his head has “been in the sand” when it comes to law enforcement “discriminating” against people of color.
Politico’s Gabriel Debenedetti reported that Kaine “is expected to play a major behind-the-scenes role on the money circuit, in addition to his public campaigning.”
Roll Call’s Simone Pathé asked whether Rep. Scott DesJarlais’ (R-TN) “abortion hypocrisy” will haunt his primary race.
The State of Texas has agreed to modify its voter identification law ahead of the November election.
The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler fact-checked “Donald Trump’s revisionist history of mocking a disabled reporter.”