One bill would ban abortion providers from teaching sex education in public schools, while the other would require women seeking an abortion to receive information written by the state about the alleged mental health risks associated with the procedure.
Update, May 29, 1:05 p.m. Eastern: HB 1262 has passed the house unanimously with a 87-0 vote, and will now head to Gov. Jindal for signature or veto.
The Louisiana Senate passed two pieces of anti-choice legislation Tuesday, adding to what has become aproductive session for anti-choice lawmakers and activists. One bill would ban abortion providers from teaching sex education in public schools, and the other would require women seeking an abortion to receive information written by the stateabout the allegedmental health risksassociated with the procedure.
HB 305, sponsored by Rep. Frank Hoffmann (R-West Monroe), would prohibit organizations like Planned Parenthood from guiding discussions on sexuality in classrooms in the state. The ban would apply to all public and charter schools that receive state funding. Hospitals would be exempt from the proposed law.
State Sen. Ben Nevers (D-Bogalusa) said on the senate floor that the legislation is aimed at ensuring “that our children … are not being targeted by abortion organizations.” Nevers has been an outspoken voice for anti-choice legislation, including aggressively questioning reproductive rights advocates in committee hearings.
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
Sen. Karen Peterson (D-New Orleans) countered that the legislation specifically targets Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. “It takes one of the premier organizations in this country out of the equation,” said Peterson. “This is a direct attack on an entity that is performing a very, very good service.”
Sen. J.P. Morrell (D-New Orleans) said the legislation sets a troubling precedent. “We are wading into some very troubling waters,” said Morrell.
HB 1262, sponsored by Rep. Barry Ivey (R-Baton Rouge), would require abortion providers to give information to women about the “psychological impacts” of abortion. Under the bill, a pamphlet with this information will be given to patients, who must sign a document confirming they received it and then wait 24 hours before returning for their procedure.
The information included in the pamphlets will be written by a 14-member task force, comprising state lawmakers, psychologists, and a member who “provides pre-abortion or post-abortion counseling in association with a nonprofit organization that does not counsel for or provide abortion.” The panel seemingly will not include abortion providers or medical or mental health professionals that advocate for abortion rights.
State primary elections brought major victories for progressive candidates on Tuesday and saw incumbent Rep. U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)—an anti-choice member of the extreme House Freedom Caucus—lose his seat to his primary challenger.
In Washington state, progressive candidate state Sen. Pramila Jayapal advanced to the general election in November in her bid to replace retiring Rep. Jim McDermott (D) in Washington’s 7th Congressional District.
The candidate has “been a champion for access to healthcare, and commonsense gun safety and civic engagement as well as for women, workers, students, communities of color, low-income communities, immigrants and refugees,” according to Jayapal’s website. That work earned her the endorsement of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who solicited donations for her campaign telling supporters in an email that Jayapal is “not afraid to take on powerful special interests” and is “running her campaign with our political revolution.”
Sanders lauded Jayapal’s win Wednesday in a statement circulated by press release. “Pramila just proved that candidates can run a strong progressive campaign funded by small-dollar donors and win big,” Sanders said. “The people-powered movement that propelled our campaign to victory in states around the country is already changing how campaigns are run up and down the ticket.”
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
Liberal and progressive groups praised Jayapal as news of her primary win broke.
“Pramila Jayapal winning this primary is huge for progressives,” Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement on the night’s election results. “She is a bold progressive game changer whose strong performance shows that voters are hungry for bold progressive ideas like expanding Social Security benefits, debt-free college, and a $15 minimum wage. With Pramila’s record as an accomplished activist and state senator, we are confident Pramila will be one of the strongest partners progressives have ever had in Congress and one of the strongest representatives Washington has ever had.”
Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List, called Jayapal a “a progressive leader and a tireless advocate for women and families” in a Wednesday statement. “She understands the importance of increasing economic opportunities and protecting women’s access to health care. EMILY’s List is proud to continue supporting Pramila in her historic bid to be the first Indian American woman elected to Congress.”
Elsewhere in the state, fellow progressive candidate Darcy Burner finished among the top two candidates in her race for the state’s 5th District House seat. The state’s primary system allows the top two candidates to advance to the November election regardless of party affiliation.
In Kansas, the incumbent Huelskamp lost his primary race to challenger Roger Marshall. The three-term congressman has represented the state’s 1st Congressional District since 2011, where he has carved out a place for himself among the extremist House Freedom Caucus (HFC), which has pushed ultra-conservative and anti-choice policies in Congress. Huelskamp was one of a dozen politicians backed by the HFC’s unofficial PAC, the House Freedom Fund, as Rewirereported.
Huelskamp championed anti-choice efforts prior to being elected into office and was “active in assisting women in crisis pregnancies” during graduate school, according to his website. He continued that legacy in Congress, where he serves as the Pro-Life Caucus whip.
Huelskamp in 2012 notoriously delivered a speech on the House floor comparing abortion care to slavery and accusing both Planned Parenthood and the Obama administration of being racist. He again used race to push his anti-choice position in 2015, tweeting that those who accepted awards from Planned Parenthood supported a “racist” agenda.
According to the New York Times, Huelskamp’s challenger Roger Marshall “won with the support of business groups and the agriculture lobby, which had turned its back on Mr. Huelskamp after Speaker John A. Boehner had him removed from the Agriculture Committee in 2012, a crucial position for a legislator from a farm state.”
During the primary race, Huelskamp released an ad questioning whether Marshall, an OB-GYN, was truly pro-life and claimed he “supports pro-abortion groups that back Planned Parenthood and Hillary Clinton.” The accusation reportedly refers to a donation from the American Congress of OB-GYNs PAC to Marshall, and a previous donation he made to the group.
Marshall’s campaign website prominently displays the Republican candidate’s “pro-life” position and touts a recommendation of his from the anti-choice American Association of Pro-Life Physicians and Gynecologists.
Brent Robertson, Marshall’s campaign spokesperson, however, defended the candidate’s anti-choice position in a statement to the Topeka-Capitol Journal in January.
University of Denver's Joshua Wilson argues that prosecutions of abortion-clinic protesters and the decline of "rescue" groups in the 1980s and 1990s boosted conservative anti-abortion legal activism nationwide.
There is nothing startling or even new in University of Denver Professor Joshua C. Wilson’s The New States of Abortion Politics (Stanford University Press). But the concise volume—just 99 pages of text—pulls together several recent trends among abortion opponents and offers a clear assessment of where that movement is going.
As Wilson sees it, anti-choice activists have moved from the streets, sidewalks, and driveways surrounding clinics to the courts. This, he argues, represents not only a change of agitational location but also a strategic shift. Like many other scholars and advocates, Wilson interprets this as a move away from pushing for the complete reversal of Roev. Wade and toward a more incremental, state-by-state winnowing of access to reproductive health care. Furthermore, he points out that it is no coincidence that this maneuver took root in the country’s most socially conservative regions—the South and Midwest—before expanding outward.
Wilson credits two factors with provoking this metamorphosis. The first was congressional passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994, legislation that imposed penalties on protesters who blocked patients and staff from entering or leaving reproductive health facilities. FACE led to the establishment of protest-free buffer zones at freestanding clinics, something anti-choicers saw as an infringement on their right to speak freely.
Not surprisingly, reproductive rights activists—especially those who became active in the 1980s and early 1990s as a response to blockades, butyric acid attacks, and various forms of property damageat abortion clinics—saw the zones as imperative. In their experiences, buffer zones were the only way to ensure that patients and staff could enter or leave a facility without being harassed or menaced.
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
The second factor, Wilson writes, involved the reduced ranks of the so-called “rescue” movement, a fundamentalist effort led by the Lambs of Christ, Operation Rescue, Operation Save America, and Priests for Life. While these groups are former shadows of themselves, the end of the rescue era did not end anti-choice activism. Clinics continue to be picketed, and clinicians are still menaced. In fact, local protesters and groups such as 40 Days for Life and the Center for Medical Progress (which has exclusively targeted Planned Parenthood) negatively affect access to care. Unfortunately, Wilson does not tackle these updated forms of harassment and intimidation—or mention that some of the same players are involved, albeit in different roles.
Instead, he argues the two threads—FACE and the demise of most large-scale clinic protests—are thoroughly intertwined. Wilson accurately reports that the rescue movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in hundreds of arrests as well as fines and jail sentences for clinic blockaders. This, he writes, opened the door to right-wing Christian attorneys eager to make a name for themselves by representing arrested and incarcerated activists.
But the lawyers’ efforts did not stop there. Instead, they set their sights on FACE and challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds. As Wilson reports, for almost two decades, a loosely connected group of litigators and activists worked diligently to challenge the buffer zones’ legitimacy. Their efforts finally paid off in 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court found that “protection against unwelcome speech cannot justify restrictions on the use of public streets and sidewalks.” In short, the decision in McCullen v. Coakley found that clinics could no longer ask the courts for blanket prohibitions on picketing outside their doors—even when they anticipated prayer vigils, demonstrations, or other disruptions. They had to wait until something happened.
This, of course, was bad news for people in need of abortions and other reproductive health services, and good news for the anti-choice activists and the lawyers who represented them. Indeed, the McCullen case was an enormous win for the conservative Christian legal community, which by the early 2000s had developed into a network united by opposition to abortion and LGBTQ rights.
The New States of Abortion Politics zeroes in on one of these legal groups: the well-heeled and virulently anti-choice Alliance Defending Freedom, previously known as the Alliance Defense Fund. It’s a chilling portrait.
According to Wilson, ADF’s budget was $40 million in 2012, a quarter of which came from the National Christian Foundation, an Alpharetta, Georgia, entity that claims to have distributed $6 billion in grants to right-wing Christian organizing efforts since 1982.
By any measure, ADF has been effective in promoting its multipronged agenda: “religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and the family.” In practical terms, this means opposing LGBTQ inclusion, abortion, marriage equality, and the right to determine one’s gender identity for oneself.
The group’s tentacles run deep. In addition to a staff of 51 full-time lawyers and hundreds of volunteers, a network of approximately 3,000 “allied attorneys” work in all 50 states to boost ADF’s agenda. Allies are required to sign a statement affirming their commitment to the Trinitarian Statement of Faith, a hallmark of fundamentalist Christianity that rests on a literal interpretation of biblical scripture. They also have to commit to providing 450 hours of pro bono legal work over three years to promote ADF’s interests—no matter their day job or other obligations. Unlike the American Bar Association, which encourages lawyers to provide free legal representation to poor clients, ADF’s allied attorneys steer clear of the indigent and instead focus exclusively on sexuality, reproduction, and social conservatism.
What’s more, by collaborating with other like-minded outfits—among them, Liberty Counsel and the American Center for Law and Justice—ADF provides conservative Christian lawyers with an opportunity to team up on both local and national cases. Periodic trainings—online as well as in-person ones—offer additional chances for skill development and schmoozing. Lastly, thanks to Americans United for Life, model legislation and sample legal briefs give ADF’s other allies an easy way to plug in and introduce ready-made bills to slowly but surely chip away at abortion, contraceptive access, and LGBTQ equality.
The upshot has been dramatic. Despite the recent Supreme Court win in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the number of anti-choice measures passed by statehouses across the country has ramped up since 2011. Restrictions—ranging from parental consent provisions to mandatory ultrasound bills and expanded waiting periods for people seeking abortions—have been imposed. Needless to say, the situation is unlikely to improve appreciably for the foreseeable future. What’s more, the same people who oppose abortion have unleashed a backlash to marriage equality as well as anti-discrimination protections for the trans community, and their howls of disapproval have hit a fever pitch.
The end result, Wilson notes, is that the United States now has “an inconstant localized patchwork of rules” governing abortion; some counties persist in denying marriage licenses to LGBTQ couples, making homophobic public servants martyrs in some quarters. As for reproductive health care, it all depends on where one lives: By virtue of location, some people have relatively easy access to medical providers while others have to travel hundreds of miles and take multiple days off from work to end an unwanted pregnancy. Needless to say, this is highly pleasing to ADF’s attorneys and has served to bolster their fundraising efforts. After all, nothing brings in money faster than demonstrable success.
The New States of Abortion Politics is a sobering reminder of the gains won by the anti-choice movement. And while Wilson does not tip his hand to indicate his reaction to this or other conservative victories—he is merely the reporter—it is hard to read the volume as anything short of a call for renewed activism in support of reproductive rights, both in the courts and in the streets.