Abortion

Abortion.com Find an Abortion Provider

Call for a provider near you (800) 804-8868

Abortion Care – Abortion Pill – Abortion Medical – Late Term Abortion

© Getty Images

As health-care providers who work day in and day out with women, we are deeply worried about the unregulated growth of fake health centers that seek to actively deceive women facing unplanned pregnancies.

These so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” often advertise free pregnancy testing and pregnancy-options education. But once a woman steps into the facility she is presented with factually inaccurate and misleading information, often by untrained staff pretending to be medical personnel, to dissuade her from pursuing an abortion.

From Harlem to Hartford, there are more than 200 of these centers in the tristate area alone. We both work near or practically next door to these facilities. We are aware of how they strategically set up shop next to OB-GYN facilities that provide comprehensive reproductive care, including abortions, in order to lure patients away.

 

We have noticed how they choose names that are almost identical to family planning clinics to confuse women. We have even seen members of their staff open their doors as our patients walk by to bring them into their facility and provide them with false information about abortion.

On March 20, the Supreme Court heard National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, a case challenging a California law that requires these facilities to provide factual information about the availability of free and low-cost government health-care services, including contraception, prenatal care and abortion care.

What we hope the Court will consider are the women who step into these facilities, sometimes scared and unsure in the face of an unplanned pregnancy. She may have simply googled or walked by the facility hoping that she would be provided judgement-free, compassionate care and advice about her options. Many of these facilities are purposely located in low-income areas where women have less resources and information about medical care.

We know the court will assess if it’s legal to actively deceive women during their time of need. But shouldn’t we also ask ourselves is this right?

Is it ethical to allow untrained staff to present women with medically inaccurate materials to scare her away from exercising her right to pursue a safe abortion in a timely manner? Is it just to deny women who are struggling to make ends meet information about government assistance for reproductive care? Is it fair to impose your morality on someone else when they will live the rest of their lives with the decision you lured them into.

We both went into reproductive health care because of our deeply-held faith. We both revere the right of every woman make her own moral and ethical decisions over her body. We care deeply about our neighbors, and that includes providing them with compassionate care in their time of need.

We both feel an abiding responsibility to guide our patients with compassion and empower them with comprehensive information about the options available to them. That of course includes not allowing our religious views to interfere with what our patients deem is best for them.

God gave us all free will. And that is why we believe deeply in supporting and empowering our patients with the information that will allow them to live their lives to their full potential. That is why we hope others will join us in upholding what is right and that our lawmakers stand up to say misleading women should not be sanctioned under law. It is neither just nor kind.

Dr. Albert G. Thomas is a former Catholics for Choice Board Member and an OB/GYN New York, N.Y. Jamie Beers, former clinic administrator at Hartford GYN Center, Hartford, Conn.

Source: http://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/393074-women-need-compassionate-comprehensive-health-care-not-lies

A federal lawsuit filed Thursday in Indiana argues many of the state’s abortion laws are unconstitutional, in the latest test of the strength of the abortion rights win in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Advocates are challenging five categories of Indiana abortion laws.
 Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Fresh off filing a lawsuit seeking to undo a web of Virginia anti-choice restrictions, reproductive rights advocates in Indiana filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging laws they claim place ideological opposition to abortion rights above patient health in the Hoosier state.

The lawsuit, brought by attorneys on behalf of Whole Woman’s Health Alliance and All-Options Pregnancy Resource Center, challenges dozens of Indiana abortion restrictions they allege impose medically unnecessary burdens on patients, require doctors to lie to their patients, and have led to the closure of clinics across the state. 

Advocates are challenging five categories of Indiana laws. The first are targeted regulation of abortion providers laws or TRAP laws. Those laws, among other things, mandate that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, require licensing that applies only to abortion clinics, and mandate that only physicians perform abortions.  

The lawsuit challenges laws that advocates claim deny abortion patients the benefits of scientific progress. These include restrictions on medication abortion and telemedicine restrictions, as well as Indiana’s forced 24-hour waiting period and its requirement that doctors provide patients state-mandated, scientifically unproven information about abortion care. 

Indiana’s parental involvement and judicial bypass laws are also challenged, as are Indiana laws that place criminal liabilities on abortion providers.

“In Texas, Virginia, and now in Indiana, we have joined forces with our allies to fight for women’s access to quality abortion care without a maze of obstacles,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, president of Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, said in a statement. “The Whole Woman’s Health Supreme Court victory was game-changing—affirming that abortion laws must be based on medical evidence. We’re using this new standard to challenge dozens of restrictions, some dating back decades, that are based on ideology, not health or science.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 struck down several provisions of Texas’ anti-choice law HB 2 in a landmark case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Many of the provisions challenged in the Indiana and Virginia lawsuits mirror provisions struck by the Court in Whole Woman’s Health.

“Indiana’s abortion laws make it harder for everyone to get abortion care in Indiana, but they compound the difficulties faced by low-income people, people of color, and immigrants, making it exponentially harder for them to access abortion care,” said Dipti Singh, senior counsel and strategy director at the Lawyering Project, in a statement following the lawsuit. “This lawsuit aims to ensure that abortion access for these communities is a right in reality—not just on paper.”

The lawsuit seeks to have each provision blocked and declared unconstitutional. Attorneys for the State of Indiana have not yet responded to the complaint. 

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/06/22/advocates-set-sights-indiana-abortion-restrictions-new-lawsuit/

Wednesday’s letter follows several instances of the Trump administration coordinating with anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ rights groups to create policy.

Congressional Democrats sent a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar on Wednesday requesting documents about the Trump administration’s proposed Title X domestic gag rule.

The letter, signed by all 18 Democratic members of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, requests documents detailing the actions of HHS staff in regards to the proposed rule, including communications and meeting schedules between agency staff and non-governmental entities.

“This is not the first time the Trump administration has sought to curtail the reproductive rights of women and their access to information,” the letter said. It described a February letter from Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) to HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan detailing a whistleblower’s account that anti-choice group Alliance Defending Freedom was behind an effort to allow states to terminate family planning providers from Medicaid programs.

The Trump administration’s proposed domestic “gag rule” is an anti-choice regulation directed at the federal Title X family planning program. It would eliminate a requirement that clinics receiving Title X funding offer counseling and referrals for all pregnancy options; require “physical and financial separationof abortion related activities from Title X project activities”; and prohibit “Title X projects from engaging in activities that encourage, promote, or advocate abortion.”

The Trump administration has long coordinated with anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ rights groups to create policy. Last July, Vice President Mike Pence denied he had met with anti-choice groups despite tweeting a photo of the meeting in progress. The meeting was not listed on Pence’s daily schedule.

Shortly after the White House released its written policy banning transgender troops from the military, Slate and ThinkProgress reported that the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson and other anti-trans activists coordinated with Pence to write the discriminatory policy.

Many top HHS administrators have worked at anti-choice organizations. Since they were hired, the agency has repeatedly leveled attacks on access to abortion care and reproductive health care.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/06/21/democrats-want-know-helped-craft-trump-administrations-domestic-gag-rule/

Attorney General Adam Laxalt suggested that, if elected governor, he’d take aim at a voter referendum that protects the right to abortion. Now his campaign says he has “zero interest” in doing just that.

In response to Laxalt’s statements, NARAL Pro-Choice Nevada announced it will hold a press conference on Tuesday. The reproductive rights organization said its 38,000 grassroots members “will not stand for a candidate for governor who wants to roll back our reproductive rights, including access to abortion.”

 

The Republican gubernatorial candidate in Nevada is backing away from an anti-choice stance he took last week, now accusing a local news outlet of mischaracterization.

The furor stems from a comment made by state Attorney General Adam Laxalt. Laxalt suggested that, if elected governor, he’d take aim at a popular voter referendumthat protects the right to abortion, telling ABC station KOLO, “We’re going to look in to it.”

The comment has created an uproar in a tight gubernatorial race, prompting a swift “clarification” from Laxalt’s camp.

The seat, held by termed-limited Gov. Brian Sandoval (R), is considered a toss up. Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state, with about 650,000 registered Democrats compared to 552,000 registered Republicans, according to the most recent voter rolls. Hillary Clinton won Nevada by 2.4 percentage points in the 2016 presidential election, while Barack Obama won the state by almost 7 percentage points in 2012.

Laxalt campaign manager Kristin Davison in a statement called the news reports on Laxalt’s comments a “totally false characterization” taken “out of context.” Laxalt has “zero interest in ‘undoing’ the 1990 law in question. None,” she added.

But in the on-camera interview with KOLO, Laxalt said of abortion, “we’re going to have that debate” and said he would “err on the side of life.”

The Nevada ballot measure that Laxalt said he wanted “to look in to,” Question 7, passed in 1990 with 63 percent of the vote. The measure protects the right to abortion up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. It “will remain in effect and cannot be amended, repealed or otherwise changed, except by a direct vote of the people,” according to language from the state’s voter guide.

Laxalt’s campaign did not respond to requests for an interview or comments. In a statement to KOLO, the campaign took jabs at Laxalt’s gubernatorial opponent, calling the controversy, “an attempt to distract from Steve Sisolak’s extreme view that there should be zero limits on abortion and taxpayer funding for abortion providers.”

Sisolak, the Democratic candidate and chair of the Clark County Commission, said in a forum last month he would not support abortion restrictions, according to the Nevada Independent.

In contrast, Laxalt, in a recent Q & A with the Reno Gazette-Journal, said he supports bans on later abortion care. He sidestepped a question on whether Planned Parenthood should receive federal money, saying the matter is up to the state’s representatives on Capitol Hill.

In response to Laxalt’s statements, NARAL Pro-Choice Nevada announced it will hold a press conference on Tuesday. The reproductive rights organization said its 38,000 grassroots members “will not stand for a candidate for governor who wants to roll back our reproductive rights, including access to abortion.”

“Laxalt trying to walk back his stance on repealing abortion rights after getting negative feedback is perfectly on brand for him,” said Caroline Mello Roberson, NARAL Pro-Choice Nevada state director. “Laxalt claims his words were ‘taken out of context’ but it’s clear that even his own campaign knows Laxalt is an extremist out of touch with every day Nevadans that voted 28 years ago to trust women with their own reproductive health care choices.”

Almost three-quarters of Nevadans identify as pro-choice, according to the organization.

As attorney general, Laxalt signed the state of Nevada on to an amicus brief defending a Texas ban on the most common procedure for second trimester abortions and supporting cases brought by California fake clinics, or crisis pregnancy centers.

The Nevada State Democratic Party last month filed a public records request seeking communications between Laxalt’s office and anti-choice organizations, including National Right to Life, Nevada Right to Life, and the Pro-Life League of Nevada, as the Nevada Independent reported. The records are expected to be released next month.

Nevada Right to Life did not respond to requests for comment.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/06/19/gop-candidate-nevada-governor-walks-back-anti-choice-comments/

Abortion is a low-risk procedure, despite right-wing disinformation. Can activists change the public’s perception?

Even though abortion is both an extremely common and an incredibly safe procedure, public perception is pretty much the opposite. Likely because still-widespread stigma against female sexuality, polling shows that Americans drastically underestimate how common abortion is and drastically overestimate how dangerous it is. Popular media contributes to these misconceptions, with TV and movies portraying abortion as so dangerous that even thinking about it can hurt you.

Anti-choice activists and legislators have long abused these misconceptions about abortion safety, exploiting misinformation and fear to pass restrictions that only serve to make the procedure more difficult and expensive for women to legally obtain. Since 2011, states have adopted 401 abortion restrictions, and most — such as waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds and age restrictions — are based on the false notion that abortion is a serious and dangerous procedure.

But after the 2016 Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which overturned a series of Texas regulations on abortion providers that had no basis in medical necessity, pro-choice activists have a new mission: Get the word out about how safe abortion actually is, and overturn the multitude of laws based on the false notion that it’s not. They have a growing body of research to point to, which makes clear that abortion tops the list of safe medical procedures, especially when compared to the alternative of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

On Thursday, the women behind the Whole Woman’s Health case — lawyer Stephanie Toti and clinic owner Amy Hagstrom-Miller — announced, with a team of reproductive rights activists, an ambitious new litigation strategy aimed at rooting out years worth of abortion restrictions in Texas, most of which predate those struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. The suit challenges an array of restrictions, including limits on medication abortion, age restrictions and a mandatory waiting period that comes with a state-required script that deliberately exaggerates the medical risks of abortion.

“Justice Breyer’s majority decision [in Whole Woman’s Health] clearly stated that politicians can’t just claim their anti-abortion restrictions improve women’s health and safety,” Hagstrom-Miller said in a press call about the lawsuit. “With this lawsuit today, we hope to leverage the Whole Woman’s Health standard even more, to bring a comprehensive challenge that rolls back dozens of bad laws that have harmed Texans for decades.”

In the same call, Toti noted that “many states have a vast infrastructure of unreasonable and medically unnecessary abortion regulations on the books that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” hinting that activists hope this approach can help reverse the nationwide tide of bad abortion laws.

Aiding this effort is continued research showing exactly how safe abortion actually is. On Thursday evening, the research group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) added another study to the growing body of medical literature that demonstrates that patient risks in abortion are startlingly low. Using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, researchers found that out of 190 million emergency department visits by women of reproductive age between 2009 and 2013, fewer than 30,000 of those visits were for abortion-related reasons.

In statistical terms, that means that 0.01 percent of women between 15 and 49 who went to the emergency room — one out of every 10,000 women — were there because they had an abortion and are worried that something is going wrong. The emphasis on “worried” is not just spin, because even among the small number of women who did go to the hospital after having abortions, most were just fine.

In more than half of such visits, “women were being observed and then released,” Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, the lead researcher, told Salon. “So they never actually received any treatment.”

In many cases, she added, such women may decide to go to the hospital because they have absorbed the myth that abortion is dangerous and therefore react negatively to symptoms that might not be alarming.

Of women who went to the emergency room after an abortion, about 5,600 women had serious complications. That number is out of more than 5 million abortions provided nationwide during that time, which means that 0.1 percent of abortions result in serious complications. Not only is this rate tiny compared to the rate of serious complications related to pregnancy — which is about 1.4 percent — but it’s also dwarfed by the risks of other procedures most people understand as safe.

That rate of serious complications for abortion “is lower than colonoscopy, wisdom tooth removal and tonsillectomy,” Upadhyay said.

The real risk to women, she added, lies in the medically unsound restrictions that led to the closure of so many abortion clinics: “It’s really detrimental to women’s health to lose another abortion clinic.”

Texas activists are hoping that the solid science behind their case can finally begin to reverse the pileup of regulations that do nothing to improve medical care but have been effective at limiting women’s access to abortion and other reproductive care.

Nan Little Kirkpatrick, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, wrote in an emailed statement that she had spoken to people in Amarillo, Texas, who drove a woman four hours each way to Albuquerque, New Mexico, for an abortion appointment, because all providers in the Texas Panhandle had been closed down. “The group of laws being challenged may seem on the surface to be a hodgepodge of random requirements,” she continued, “but together they weave a huge barrier to abortion access for thousands of people in Texas, especially low-income people, people of color, and people in our vast rural areas.”

For decades, Americans have been subject to misinformation and stereotypes that paint abortion as some kind of dangerous and gruesome medical intervention born out of desperation. The truth is that abortion is common — despite declines in the abortion rate, one in four women will still have one in her lifetime — and, as this new research shows, represents no real danger to women’s health It remains to be seen if activists can undo America’s widespread misconceptions about abortion, but this aggressive new legal strategy, coupled with research and public education, creates a possible path forward.

Source: https://www.salon.com/2018/06/15/abortion-is-extremely-safe-but-the-anti-choice-movement-has-convinced-people-otherwise/

Otherwise known as just another day in the Trump administration.

He’s white, anti-choice, and conservative, which should come as no surprise.

 

Welcome to Gavel Drop, our roundup of legal news, headlines, and head-shaking moments in the courts.

More in “Trump is bad news for the federal judiciary”: At age 37 and with only one year on the bench, Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick is about to become the youngest federal judge confirmed under the Trump administration. He’s white and conservative, which should come as no surprise. What may come as a surprise is that before Scott Pruitt joined the Environmental Protection Agency and blew all our minds with rank corruption, he was Oklahoma’s attorney general and blew Oklahomans’ minds with rank corruption. And guess who his protégé was? If you guessed Patrick Wyrick, give yourself a high five.

Lisa Belkin of Yahoo News writes that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has become a favorite among abortion foes in the states that sit in the Eighth Circuit—Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. Anti-abortion politicians and lobbyists have been introducing abortion restrictions in those states in the hopes that the Eighth Circuit will uphold them—because it is one of the most conservative courts of appeal in the country, especially when it comes to abortion rights—thus provoking a challenge to Roe v. Wade and giving the Supreme Court an opening to reverse the 45-year-old decision.

Demand Justice, a liberal nonprofit founded by Capitol Hill alums, is going on the offensive: Since Republicans have been blocking the appointments of progressive judges such as U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, this Democrat-heavy group is rolling out a digital ad campaign targeting Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist.

In the case of Robert Lewis Dear Jr., the Planned Parenthood shooter who admitted to killing three people in Colorado Springs, the Colorado Supreme Court has upheld two lower court rulings that the state mental institution where Dear is housed can forcibly medicate him in an effort to restore his mental competency so that he can stand trial.

New court documents in a pending criminal case in Kentucky have filled in some details about the September 2017 yard dispute that landed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in the hospital with broken ribs and injured lungs. Paul was reportedly dumping yard debris near a neighbor’s property and said neighbor tackled Paul. Good fences make good neighbors?

New York’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Foundation alleging campaign finance violations and other problems related to the foundation’s dealings with the Trump campaign. If convicted, President Trump won’t be able to pardon his way out of it because he can only pardon federal crimes, not state crimes.

In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota law barring voters from wearing political apparel at the ballot box. John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that the definition of political apparel was too broad and that the enforcement guidance provided to poll workers was haphazard, rendering the statute unconstitutional.

Crystal Mason, the Texas woman who was sentenced to five years in prison for voter fraud, will not get a new trial.  Mason says she didn’t know that her felony conviction for tax fraud barred her from voting.

A new restriction on medication abortion in Missouri will remain in effect pending the resolution of a lawsuit that will determine whether the restriction is lawful. The regulation requires clinics to adopt a “complication plan” under which the clinic contracts with two OB-GYNs who have admitting privileges at a local hospital and agree to be on call 24/7 in case a complication arises in connection with medication abortion services. Judge Beth Phillips denied Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction, which means Planned Parenthood clinics in in Columbia and Springfield, Missouri, will not be able to offer medication abortion until the lawsuit is resolved one way or the other.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2018/06/18/another-woefully-unqualified-judge/

Supporters of legalized abortion embrace Thursday after the the vote in the Chamber of Deputies.

 

Buenos Aires, Argentina The Argentine Chamber of Deputies voted Thursday morning to legalize elective abortion in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

The bill now goes to the more conservative Senate for consideration. President Mauricio Macri has said he won’t veto the bill if Congress approves it, even though he opposes abortion.
“We have been able to settle our differences with respect, tolerance and listening to each other; understanding that dialogue is the road that will strengthen our future,” Macri said. “My congratulations to everyone, knowing that this debate now continues in the Senate.”
Activists outside the Argentine Congress before the vote on Thursday.

Though it’s unclear whether the bill will become law, the issue has energized Argentine women, including thousands who filled the streets around Congress during 23 hours of tense debate.
“Legal abortion in the hospital!” they chanted upon hearing the bill was approved.
In Argentina — a Catholic country and the homeland of Pope Francis — abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or when the woman’s life is endangered. Supporters of abortion reform say even those legal abortions are difficult to obtain. Women who otherwise get abortions can be imprisoned for as long as four years.
The Chamber of Deputies’ bill also would allow women to get legal abortions after 14 weeks if the pregnancy resulted from rape, the woman’s health was at risk, or the fetus suffered severe conditions not compatible with life outside of the womb.
The vote was 129 to 125. It first was reported to have passed with 131 votes, but two congressmen claimed they pushed the wrong button and voted for the bill when they meant to vote against it.

‘It was a huge surprise’

Green has become the color of supporters of legalized abortion.

As soon as the vote was announced, thousands of pro-choice activists who had gathered to watch the vote on a giant screen outside Congress broke into cheers.
“I cried and hugged my brother,” Ariadna Mina, a 15-year-old Catholic school student, said. “I really feared it was going to be rejected. I was anxious all night.”
Hours earlier it seemed the bill was destined for failure, but shortly before the vote there was a last-minute shift and the measure passed by four votes.
“It was a huge surprise that it was approved, although we were optimistic I personally couldn’t believe it,” said Florencia Llamas, 28, a drama teacher. “Lately in this country it seems rights are always being cut, and here we have something that marks a change of era for women’s rights.”
While pro-choice activists continued celebrating hours after the vote, the area reserved for anti-abortion demonstrators was empty except for a few stragglers, including Liliana Fernández, a 39-year-old accountant who had tears in her eyes.
“I can’t believe it, I really can’t believe it,” she said. “I thought our representatives would never vote in favor of death. … Now we have to make sure senators don’t follow their lead.”
Almendra Pizarro, 26, a lawyer, said her joy at the decision was short-lived.
“I was ecstatic for a second but we have to be realistic,” she said. “It will be tough fight in the Senate.” Despite that concern, “I feel this is a great conquest, the result of a fight that has been going on for a long time.”

Global trend develops

People demonstrate against the decriminalization of abortion on June 10, in front of the Cathedral of Tucuman, in northern Argentina, after marching under the slogan "Save Both Lives."

Supporters of the Argentine bill were heartened by a recent vote in Ireland, another predominantly Catholic country. Irish voters in May approved an amendment to the country’s constitution that would allow the repeal its near-total ban on abortion.
“With the vote in Congress, Argentina can join the global trend toward expanding legal grounds to allow abortion and affirming the rights and dignity of women and girls,” José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, said before Thursday’s vote.
In Argentina, the #NiUnaMenos, or “not one less,” movement thrust abortion rights fully into the public forum.
In 2016, women took to the streets in anger after a 16-year-old girl was abducted outside her school, drugged, repeatedly raped and killed. The movement then broadened to include issues such as LGBTQ rights and abortion rights.
“What was once taboo only a few years ago is now being openly and thoroughly debated across society,” Giselle Carino, the regional director for the International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region, said in an email interview with CNN. Carino said the trend toward legalizing abortion will continue to grow.
Argentina’s Supreme Court decriminalized abortions in cases of rape six years ago.
But physicians are often hesitant to perform an abortion, even when it’s legally sanctioned, Carino said. She said the laws are usually enforced against poor women, since women of means find ways to terminate their pregnancies with misoprostol, an abortion pill, or by going to a private clinic.
Supporters of the bill emphasize that legalization would reduce the number of poor women who try to end their pregnancies through cheap, unsafe methods.

Next: The Senate

Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Argentines favor the legalization of abortion and that there is a clear generational divide.
Lucas Romero, the head of Synopsis, a consultancy, said surveys have shown the Argentine Senate would probably reject the bill.
“Of course, we can’t dismiss the role of public opinion and the pressure that approval in the lower house could bring,” he said. “Those could both be factors that could change the scenario in the Senate, … but for now it remains very uncertain.”
Some members of the Chamber of Deputies said the debate was agonizing. Before the vote, lawmaker José Ignacio De Mendiguren tweeted that he was a Catholic but that “I will vote in favor of the law. My convictions are my own, they guide my life. But my convictions are not the truth.”

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/14/americas/argentina-abortion-bill-passes/index.html