Analysis Abortion

Pennsylvania Woman Arrested for Ordering Daughter Abortion-Inducing Pills Online

Tara Murtha

The logical outcome of the current anti-choice strategy is arrests of pregnant women and the people who try to help them: Coerce women into the black market by reducing the number of legal abortion providers, and then leave them to the prosecutors.

In January 2012, a 16-year-old girl living in central Pennsylvania discovered she was pregnant. She wanted to end the pregnancy, but didn’t know where to go. She lived in Montour, the smallest county in Pennsylvania, which, like 97 percent of all non-metropolitan counties in the country, doesn’t have an abortion provider.

Pennsylvania mandates that people under 18 get parental approval before receiving an abortion. In this case, the girl did what the state wants teens in her situation to do: She turned to her mother.

Her mom, Jennifer Whalen, allegedly ordered abortion pills off the Internet.

From the Press Enterprise:

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Whalen couldn’t find a local abortion clinic, and she didn’t want to take her daughter out of state. Whalen found an overseas drugstore online that sold abortion drugs, so she ordered a package for about $45.

Whalen did not obtain a prescription because she didn’t know one was needed. One drug was to be taken orally, while the other was to be used vaginally 24 hours after the first drug. Upon taking the second drug, the girl immediately began menstruating.

Two weeks later, the girl experienced “severe abdominal pain.” Whelan took her to the hospital, where she was treated for incomplete abortion and a UTI.

Whalen’s reasoning about traveling out of state indicates that perhaps she wasn’t aware that she had any options in Pennsylvania. The closest clinic to her home was in Harrisburg, about 75 miles away. A state-mandated 24-hour waiting period would mean Whalen and her daughter would have had to make the drive twice, or they would have had to stay overnight in the Harrisburg area.

Almost one-third of Pennsylvania’s abortion clinics have closed since 2012, when conservative state lawmakers passed abortion clinic regulations mandating expensive architectural changes, despite the protests of relevant medical groups in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell case.

While the Gosnell grand jury report indicated that the rogue provider was able to operate undetected as a result of lawmakers treating abortion as a political issue rather than a public health one, the response of the state legislature was to further politicize abortion.

We already know that the more anti-choice politicians—many of them higher-income men—treat abortion as a partisan litmus test and a “family values” signifier, the more women who need safe abortion service suffer.

The Whalen case reveals we’re at a tipping point in Pennsylvania: The politicization of abortion ultimately means the criminalization of pregnancy.

According to reports, two weeks after Whalen’s daughter, now 18, took the pills, she experienced severe abdominal pain. They went to the local hospital to be examined. According to the district attorney, both Whalen and the teen admitted the teen took the pills.

A doctor at the hospital called the police, setting in motion a case that would lead to her eventual arrest, in December 2013.

Mail-Order Abortions

Study after study shows that restricting access to safe, legal abortions by outlawing the procedure or, as is the preferred method in the United States, implementing geographic, logistical and financial barriers, doesn’t result in fewer unplanned pregnancies or abortions.

Neither strategy reduces the need for safe abortion. They both result in women seeking abortion through other, unregulated and often unsafe means. That is one of the main reasons pre-Roe pro-choice advocates argued for regulations.

Before Roe v. Wade in 1973, a black-market abortion meant a back-alley abortion. Today, women who need an abortion but can’t access one don’t have to make appointments with illegal providers. Abortion pills can be ordered online 24 hours a day and discreetly shipped from overseas pharmacies to your door. Modern black-market abortions take place at home.

Though it may be scary, swallowing pills ordered online is arguably less terrifying than allowing a stranger to insert metal tools into your body. It’s cheaper, too: Whalen purchased her pills for $45.

While no one knows how many online outlets sell these pills—usually a mix of misoprostol and mifepristone—a 2011 Newsweek article about Jennie Linn McCormack, an Idaho woman who was arrested for self-inducing an abortion with pills purchased online, noted that “the proliferation of sites providing the drugs coincides with the pro-life movement’s highly effective protests and attacks on physicians, clinics and healthcare groups that offer abortions.”

The “pro-life” movement has indeed been highly effective in Pennsylvania. The virulently anti-choice Americans United for Life consistently praises Pennsylvania lawmakers for “[leading] the way for other states.” After watching similar legislation close one-third of Texas’ clinics, Reps. Brian Cutler (R-Lancaster) and Bryan Barbin (D-Cambria) re-introduced an admitting privileges bill in Pennsylvania.

While state politicians follow Texas’ blueprint, there’s every reason to believe that Pennsylvania women will follow Texans’ footsteps. Anecdotal evidence indicates that women in Texas travel to Mexico for abortion pills, which also have been sold at local flea markets.

There’s no way to know how many women are already ordering abortion pills—or self-medicating through insulin or psychiatric meds for that matter—online. The sales are by definition unregulated. We are, however, starting to see how women will be punished when they self-induce—or, as in this case, if they order abortion-inducing pills for someone else.

New Legal Territory

The Whalen case ventures into uncharted legal territory: Rebecca Warren, the Montour County district attorney, spent nearly two years reviewing state statutes to figure out what charges to bring in the case.

Whalen has been charged with medical consultation, unlawfully dispensing medicine, endangering the welfare of a child, and simple assault. Medical consultation is a third-degree felony. “The allegations are that she performed an abortion,” Warren told Rewire.

The county applied an assault charge, because Whalen “attempted to cause or intentionally knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury to another.” The bodily injury, Warren explained, was the abdominal cramps.

“However wise or unwise the particular course of action may have been, it’s just bad for families and bad for health to address this through the criminal justice system,” said Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women. “This prosecutor has discretion, and it should be used not to try to find a way to arrest this family, but to … say, ‘Why would a family not go to health-care providers?’”

Paltrow views the Whalen case as an “attempt to try to find a way to use the courts to expand the power of police and prosecutors to surveil and punish women and families in a context in which they have less and less access to the health care they need.”

Though formal attempts to outlaw abortion have historically focused on arresting abortion providers, the logical outcome of the incremental strategy is arrests of pregnant women (and the people who try to help them): Coerce women into the black market by reducing the number of legal abortion providers, and then leave them to the prosecutors.

Will the arrest have a cooling effect on women who seek medical care after taking pills?

“I would hope it would not,” said District Attorney Warren. “And obviously there are ways to secure an abortion that are safe and legal in Pennsylvania.”

It’s just that there are increasingly fewer and fewer ways.

If convicted on all counts, Whalen could face up to 15 years in prison.

News Politics

Tim Kaine Changes Position on Federal Funding for Abortion Care

Ally Boguhn

The Obama administration, however, has not signaled support for rolling back the Hyde Amendment's ban on federal funding for abortion care.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate, has promised to stand with nominee Hillary Clinton in opposing the Hyde Amendment, a ban on federal funding for abortion care.

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, told CNN’s State of the Union Sunday that Kaine “has said that he will stand with Secretary Clinton to defend a woman’s right to choose, to repeal the Hyde amendment,” according to the network’s transcript.

“Voters can be 100 percent confident that Tim Kaine is going to fight to protect a woman’s right to choose,” Mook said.

The commitment to opposing Hyde was “made privately,” Clinton spokesperson Jesse Ferguson later clarified to CNN’s Edward Mejia Davis.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Kaine’s stated support for ending the federal ban on abortion funding is a reversal on the issue for the Virginia senator. Kaine this month told the Weekly Standard  that he had not “been informed” that this year’s Democratic Party platform included a call for repealing the Hyde Amendment. He said he has “traditionally been a supporter of the Hyde amendment.”

Repealing the Hyde Amendment has been an issue for Democrats on the campaign trail this election cycle. Speaking at a campaign rally in New Hampshire in January, Clinton denounced Hyde, noting that it made it “harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.”

Clinton called the federal ban on abortion funding “hard to justify” when asked about it later that month at the Brown and Black Presidential Forum, adding that “the full range of reproductive health rights that women should have includes access to safe and legal abortion.”

Clinton’s campaign told Rewire during her 2008 run for president that she “does not support the Hyde amendment.”

The Democratic Party on Monday codified its commitment to opposing Hyde, as well as the Helms Amendment’s ban on foreign assistance funds being used for abortion care. 

The Obama administration, however, has not signaled support for rolling back Hyde’s ban on federal funding for abortion care.

When asked about whether the president supported the repeal of Hyde during the White House press briefing Tuesday, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said he did not “believe we have changed our position on the Hyde Amendment.”

When pushed by a reporter to address if the administration is “not necessarily on board” with the Democratic platform’s call to repeal Hyde, Schultz said that the administration has “a longstanding view on this and I don’t have any changes in our position to announce today.”

News Politics

Democratic Party Platform: Repeal Bans on Federal Funding for Abortion Care

Ally Boguhn

When asked this month about the platform’s opposition to Hyde, Hillary Clinton’s running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said that he had not “been informed of that” change to the platform though he has “traditionally been a supporter of the Hyde Amendment.”

Democrats voted on their party platform Monday, codifying for the first time the party’s stated commitment to repealing restrictions on federal funding for abortion care.

The platform includes a call to repeal the Hyde Amendment, an appropriations ban on federal funding for abortion reimplemented on a yearly basis. The amendment disproportionately affects people of color and those with low incomes.

“We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured,” states the Democratic Party platform. “We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”

The platform also calls for an end to the Helms Amendment, which ensures that “no foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Though Helms allows funding for abortion care in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, the Obama administration has failed to enforce those guarantees.

Despite the platform’s opposition to the restrictions on abortion care funding, it makes no mention of how the anti-choice measures would be rolled back.

Both presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have promised to address Hyde and Helms if elected. Clinton has said she would “fix the Helms Amendment.”

Speaking at the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum in January, Clinton said that the Hyde Amendment “is just hard to justify because … certainly the full range of reproductive health rights that women should have includes access to safe and legal abortion.” In 2008, Clinton’s campaign told Rewire that she “does not support the Hyde amendment.”

When asked this month about the platform’s opposition to Hyde, Clinton’s running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said in an interview with the Weekly Standard that he had not “been informed of that” change to the platform though he has “traditionally been a supporter of the Hyde amendment.”

“The Hyde amendment and Helms amendment have prevented countless low-income women from being able to make their own decisions about health, family, and future,” NARAL President Ilyse Hogue said in a statement, addressing an early draft of the platform. “These amendments have ensured that a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion is a right that’s easier to access if you have the resources to afford it. That’s wrong and stands directly in contrast with the Democratic Party’s principles, and we applaud the Party for reaffirming this in the platform.”