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

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The court sets an October 31 deadline for the government to find her a sponsor
  • Only then can the girl, who is a minor, seek an abortion, the court says

(CNN)A federal appeals court Friday ruled that an undocumented teenage immigrant held in detention in Texas may obtain an abortion, but it delayed the process, giving the Trump administration 11 days to find a sponsor to take custody of the girl beforehand.

The ruling set a deadline of October 31 for the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to get a sponsor for the girl, who is a minor.
The 17-year-old, identified in court documents only as “Jane Doe,” came to the United States without her parents and is staying in a shelter for unaccompanied immigrant minors run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, according to court documents.
“If a sponsor is secured and J.D. is released from HHS custody to the sponsor, HHS agrees that J.D. then will be lawfully able, if she chooses, to obtain an abortion on her own pursuant to the relevant state law,” according to the order from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement Friday saying he was “disappointed” with the court’s decision because it gives the federal government time to find a sponsor for the teen “so she can be taken for an abortion.”
“Unlawfully-present aliens with no substantial ties to the U.S. do not have a right to abortion on demand,” Paxton said. “Texas must not become a sanctuary state for abortions.”
Thursday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of a ruling that would have allowed the teenager to obtain an abortion. That ruling, from a federal judge on Wednesday, ordered the government to allow the girl to get an abortion after the Trump administration denied her access to one.
In a two-page decision, DC District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered officials at the Department of Health and Human Services to allow the teen to be transported by a guardian or attorney “promptly and without delay” to an abortion provider to obtain state-mandated counseling and then to obtain the abortion.
The order also barred those officials from “interfering or obstructing” the girl’s access, from forcing her to make her decision known to anyone and from “retaliating” against her and the facility where she is in regards to her decision.
But the Court of Appeals issued a stay on the ruling Thursday to “give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion” filed by the government. That ruling came Friday.
The ACLU, which is representing the girl, filed a lawsuit late last week against the administration.
“This administration has no shame and no regard for a woman’s health or decisions,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Weeks ago, our client decided to end her pregnancy. Her decision has been disregarded and she’s now been dragged into a protracted legal battle over her ability to get the care she needs.”
The HHS division that presumably would be responsible for finding a sponsor — the Administration for Children and Families — issued a statement Friday night saying, “For however much time we are given, the Office of Refugee Resettlement and HHS will protect the well-being of this minor and all children and their babies in our facilities, and we will defend human dignity for all in our care.”

Minister ‘grappling’ with legislation and says Constitution not place to address abortion

Minister Simon Harris said he had heard very difficult and upsetting cases and met people “who have felt this country has been a very lonely place that has left them feeling very isolated” in difficult circumstances. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

Minister Simon Harris said he had heard very difficult and upsetting cases and met people “who have felt this country has been a very lonely place that has left them feeling very isolated” in difficult circumstances. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

The Eighth Amendment is not working in this country and should be repealed, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Referring to Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, which put the life of a woman on equal footing with the life of the foetus she is carrying, the Minister said it was his personal view that no new restrictions on abortion should be enshrined in the Constitution.

“I don’t believe the Constitution is the best place to address this issue,” he said.

He said when the Eighth Amendment was enshrined in the Constitution it had unintended consequences.

“I don’t think it in any way has worked for women, has worked for infants, and … it has limited our ability to actually make laws to look after women, their health and infants as well,” he said.

The Minister said he was currently “grappling” with the issue of legislation. People of his generation and a generation older never had an opportunity to have a say, he said. He had heard very difficult and upsetting cases and met people “who have felt this country has been a very lonely place that has left them feeling very isolated” in difficult circumstances.

“I have met women and their partners overjoyed to find out they are pregnant, only to be hit with a terrible tragedy . . . when they find out their expected child has fatal foetal abnormality; I want to see this addressed,” he said.

‘Intrigued’

Referring to an appearance before the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment by Dr Peter Boylan, former master of the National Maternity Hospital, Mr Harris said he was “somewhat intrigued as an observer of the committee” why medical experts were being asked about “ethical or moral views”.

“I attach a greater degree of weight to any medical advice given at an Oireachtas committee, particularly when I’m not a clinician and most of my colleagues in the Oireachtas aren’t either,” he said.

He also said he believed if the Irish people made a decision to make a health service available, it should be available in the public health service.

“Hospitals in this country are funded to operate under the law of the land and to deliver our public health services,” he said.

Mr Harris welcomed the “degree of clarity” provided by the committee on Wednesday when it agreed the Eighth Amendment should not be retained in full. He also said the Oireachtas and the committee would very shortly find “it’s gone as far as it can with this matter and it will ultimately be a matter for the Irish people”.

Launch

The Minister was speaking in Dublin on Thursday at the launch of the implementation plan for the National Maternity Strategy.

The strategy, launched in 2016, centres on providing nationally consistent, high quality and women-centred maternity care. It plans to replace the current model of obstetrician-led services with midwife-led care for women with low-risk pregnancies, and obstetrician care for women with medium and high-risk pregnancies.

Services will be organised in maternity networks, in the same way that centres of excellence and networks were established under the cancer strategy. The changes will be overseen by the National Women and Infants Health Programme Office, which began its work in March this year.

The implementation plan sets out a 10-year time line for the strategy, and includes 230 actions. Detailed costing to implement the first year of the plan was not available on Thursday, and projected staff numbers were also not available. They will be included later in the year when the health service plan is published.

Killian McGrane, programme director, said over the 10-year life cycle of the plan “a very significant number” of additional staff will be required, including 100 additional obstetricians.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/no-new-restrictions-on-abortion-should-be-in-constitution-harris-1.3262442

“President Trump wants to make birth control about ideology, but let’s be clear: For women and their families in the 21st century, birth control is about being healthy and financially secure.”

Congressional Democrats have introduced legislation to block the Trump administration from unilaterally undermining a signature Affordable Care Act feature—widely guaranteed contraception without a co-pay.

Under the Protecting Access to Birth Control Act, the administration’s bombshell rules providing religious and moral exemptions for any employer “shall have no force or effect, and shall be treated as though such rules had never taken effect,” according to yet-to-be-filed bill text. An estimated 62.4 million cisgender women and an untold number of transgender and gender nonconforming people rely on the popular birth control benefit as of 2017, at a $1.4 billion savings on birth control pills alone in 2013.

Democrats in the GOP-controlled U.S. Congress can’t stop the Trump administration from axing the birth control benefit and pursuing other discriminatory reproductive health-care policies through their regulatory war; that’ll be up to the courts, where lawsuits challenging the administration are underway. But through legislation, Democrats can publicly oppose such policies and foment public opinion against them. In the first days of the Trump administration, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced the Global Health, Empowerment, and Rights (HER) Act to repeal Trump’s expanded global gag rule prohibiting U.S. foreign aid to organizations that provide abortion care abroad using their own funds.

Now, the Protecting Access to Birth Control Act puts members of Congress on the record against unraveling one of the law known as Obamacare’s most popular provisions. A new Politico/Morning Consultpoll found that 46 percent of registered voters strongly support and 20 percent somewhat support requiring health insurers to cover contraceptive care. Such findings are consistent over time. In 2015, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that 86 percent of adults across party lines backed policies that ease access to “the full range of birth control methods” for people aged 18 and older; 71 percent backed the same for teens.

The Democratic legislation brings together lead sponsors Reps. Diana DeGette (CO), Louise Slaughter (NY), Judy Chu (CA), and Lois Frankel (FL) in the House of Representatives and Sens. Patty Murray (WA) and Bob Casey (PA) in the Senate. DeGette and Slaughter co-chair the House Pro-Choice Caucus; Murray is a vocal advocate of reproductive rights, while Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, typically supports contraception.

“President Trump wants to make birth control about ideology, but let’s be clear: For women and their families in the 21st century, birth control is about being healthy and financially secure—and that’s why Democrats are going to keep fighting back against his shameful attacks on women with this bill and any other way we can,” Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/10/19/congressional-democrats-tell-trump-nope-shameful-birth-control-interference/

 

TD Ruth Coppinger. Photo: Colin O'Riordan1
TD Ruth Coppinger. Photo: Colin O’Riordan

“I believe if the people make a decision about a health service, it should be available in the public service,” he added.

Mr Harris also said he did not believe that religious ethos would see some hospitals opting out, pointing out the experience of the operation of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act is that publicly funded facilities operate under the law of the land.

He was speaking after the Oireachtas committee on abortion voted not to retain the Eighth Amendment in full.

However, internal divisions within the committee continued to rage after it emerged Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger had written to other members urging them to take another vote and clarify the recommendations of the committee.

She claimed Wednesday’s vote was “not a vote for repeal or even for a repeal referendum and potentially leaves the way open for little or no change”.

Mater Hospital psychiatrist Dr Patricia Casey has also withdrawn from giving evidence to the committee next week, saying the process has become “deeply imbalanced”.

“There are 25 on the pro-choice side with four on a pro-life or neutral perspective.

“Ireland deserves better than that,” she said.

Mr Harris said his personal view is that the Eighth Amendment should be repealed – but he declined to reveal how far he believes any legislation on abortion should go.

The views of Mr Harris were echoed by Children’s Minister Katherine Zappone yesterday, who also said it should be removed from the Constitution with the issue of abortion dealt with by legislation.

Responding to reporters’ questions, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said the committee vote gave him “some assurance” that the cross-party group of TDs would be able to come to conclusions on the matter by the end of December.

He was “confident” that the committee would reach conclusions that the Government could then take forward in the new year.

The December deadline is important to allow enough time to organise a referendum on abortion as planned by May of June next year.

Mr Harris also said he and his officials welcomed the “direction of travel” following the committee’s vote as they have to start the work of preparation for potential legislation, reviewing various scenarios.

“I have been tasked to prepare for a referendum. I am very conscious of that, without wishing to pre-empt the work of the Oireachtas committee,” he added.

“I am in favour of a referendum being held on the issue.”

The Eighth Amendment had led to a lot of unintended consequences for women, the minister added.

He had been told of parents who had been left “lonely” and “isolated” by the current restrictions.

Mr Harris was speaking at the launch of the implementation plan for the National Maternity Strategy.

The wide-ranging strategy, which was launched nearly two years ago, aims to put more measures in place to safeguard safety and also provide women who are pregnant with more choice.

Dr Peter McKenna, a former master of the Rotunda Hospital who is clinical director for the strategy, said it was too early to say how services would respond in the event of a referendum to widen the grounds for abortion.

Currently, the proposals are too “nebulous” to give any firm picture, he added.

Questioned by reporters, he said: “Our role is to implement the law of the land as safely as possible.”

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/the-state-will-fund-abortions-if-people-vote-for-change-harris-36244824.html

MANOOCHER DEGHATI/AFP/Getty Images

The abortion pill was used in for 43 percent of abortions in Planned Parenthood clinics in 2014, a number that Reuters reports has most likely gone up in the last three years. It can be used to terminate a pregnancy up to 10 weeks. It’s also safe — safer than a lot of over-the-counter drugs, including Tylenol. In the first 18 months after it was approved in the United States, 80,000 women used it to terminate a pregnancy, according to the association of Reproductive Health Professionals. The same report found that of those women, only 139 — or 0.17 percent — “experienced an adverse effect.” Even more striking, in the first eight years, 850,000 women used the abortion pill to terminate a pregnancy and seven women died. However, there was no causal relationship found between their deaths and the abortion pill. In comparison, in the seven years between 1993 and 2000, the FDA received more than 4,000 reports of adverse effects — including 55 deaths — from Claritin.

Phil Walter/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Julia Kaye, a staff attorney with ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told NPR that many women prefer the abortion pill to a surgical abortion because it “feels more natural to them, like a miscarriage.” Women can take the pill in the comfort of their own home, surrounded by loved ones if they choose. They don’t have to undergo a surgical procedure, which can feel scary and daunting.

“The abortion pill is safe, effective, and legal. So why is the FDA keeping it locked away from women who need it?” Kaye said in a press release about the lawsuit. “The FDA’s unique restrictions on medication abortion are not grounded in science — this is just abortion stigma made law.”

Currently, the abortion pill has to be administered by a doctor, in a medical facility. However, the woman doesn’t even take the pill at the doctor’s office — she takes it at home. Or, you know, not in the presence of a medical provider.Dr. Chelius’ lawsuit says that the rules stating that abortion pill has to be administered by a medical professional who has the pill in stock, is able to perform a surgical abortion in case of complications, and that providers have to be pre-registered with the drug manufacturer are placing an “undue burden” on women who want to access abortion services. The “undue burden” requirement comes from the landmark 2016 cases Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which found that restrictions on abortion clinics in Texas made it nearly impossible for women to access safe and legal abortion in parts of that state.

For Dr. Chelius, the undue burden comes from the fact that there are people in his practice who have objections to abortion and refuse to sign off on the abortion pill. As a result, women who are seeking abortion services have to take a 300 mile round trip to another Hawaiian island. For many women on Kauai, the cost and travel time are prohibitive, making it impossible for them to get an abortion.

“I believe it’s my moral obligation to provide my patients with the care they need — whether that’s maternity care or abortion,” said Dr. Chelius in the press release. “Unfortunately, because of the FDA’s restrictions, my patients are forced either to fly to a different provider on another island — resulting in serious delays — or to carry a pregnancy to term against their will.”

No woman should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. Women are no safer when a medical professional hands them a (scientifically proven to be safe) pill to take at home than they are when a pharmacist hands them that same pill. Here’s to hoping Dr. Chelius’ lawsuit is successful and women in Kauai — and across the United States — can access their right to safe and legal abortion.

https://www.bustle.com/p/a-hawaiian-doctor-the-aclu-are-suing-for-increased-access-to-the-abortion-pill-2780300

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The stay stops a ruling that would have allowed the teenager to get an abortion
  • The teenager is an undocumented immigrant in detention in Texas

Washington (CNN)The US Court of Appeals has issued an administrative stay against a ruling that would have allowed an undocumented teenager in detention in Texas to obtain an abortion.

On Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the government to allow the pregnant teen to get an abortion after the Trump administration denied her access to one.
In a two-page decision, DC District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered officials at the Department of Health and Human Services to allow the girl, identified only as Jane Doe, to be transported by a guardian or attorney “promptly and without delay” to an abortion provider to obtain state-mandated counseling and then to obtain the abortion.
The order also barred those officials from “interfering or obstructing” the girl’s access, from forcing her to make her decision known to anyone and from “retaliating” against her and the facility where she is in regards to her decision.
However, the Court of Appeals issued a stay on the ruling Thursday to “give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion” filed by the government, the court ruled.
The teen can still receive the counseling that is required by Texas state law before a woman has an abortion, however, the latest ruling delays the actual procedure until the court has reviewed the case. The appeals court will hear oral arguments in the case Friday morning.
The ACLU, which is representing the girl, filed a lawsuit late last week against the administration.
“This administration has no shame and no regard for a woman’s health or decisions,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Weeks ago, our client decided to end her pregnancy. Her decision has been disregarded and she’s now been dragged into a protracted legal battle over her ability to get the care she needs. The abuse of power is appalling.”
According to the lawsuit, the unaccompanied 17-year-old is staying in a Texas shelter under the Office of Refugee Resettlement of HHS, which takes custody of undocumented immigrant minors that come to the US without any parents or guardians. She is not able to leave, except to leave the US entirely.
While the teen had judicial permission, in the place of parental consent, and the funds to the get the abortion, the ACLU said, officials refused to transport her for the procedure or allow anyone else to do so. The lawsuit also alleged the girl was forced to visit a “religious, anti-abortion” center and her mother was notified over her objections.
In a statement, the Administration for Children and Families at HHS said the ruling was “troubling,” “exceeds the US Constitution and sets a dangerous precedent by opening our borders to any illegal children seeking taxpayer-supported, elective abortions.”
HHS is considering its next steps, the statement said.
“We are disheartened the ruling rewards ideologically motivated lawsuits filed in multiple courts by the ACLU and abortion advocates,” the statement said. “Though the order overrides the policies and procedures of the Office of Refugee Resettlement designed to protect children and their babies who have illegally crossed the border, we will continue to provide them with excellent health care and protect their well-being in all our facilities.”

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 05: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduces the Senate version of the ‘Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act’ during a news conference with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (L) and leaders from other anti-abortion groups in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill October 5, 2017 in Washington, DC. Sen. Graham introduced the companion legislation to House of Representatives’ version, which passed earlier this week by a vote of 237 to 189. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

At age 40, after being blessed with three beautiful, healthy children, I was overjoyed to discover I was pregnant with a son. I began to blog about my pregnancy and post pictures from our ultrasounds.

And then everything changed.

At 16 weeks, my husband and I learned our unborn son had a heart condition. We scheduled tests and we tried to learn everything we could, but by 20 weeks, his heartbeat had stopped. I will never forget the experience in the ultrasound room with his body floating, protected by my womb and my love, but he was no longer alive.

Devastated by this incomprehensible reversal of fate, we were referred to another provider at a different clinic because my doctor was unable to perform the procedure due to the late stage of my pregnancy. Not knowing the procedure was considered an abortion, my husband and I arrived and learned that the clinic could not accept my insurance, forcing us to pay out of pocket for the loss of our son.

I have been a supporter of a woman’s right to choose since I was young. Having spent much of my life studying the Torah, I know that my faith recognizes that women have the moral right and capacity to make our own personal health decisions. I never imagined I would one day need a late-term abortion. No one does.

Abortions after 20 weeks are relatively rare, less than 5 percent of the total. But as in my case, many fetal anomalies are not discovered until the 20-week ultrasound. It is cruel enough to be facing that decision. It is even crueler for a politician to presume to make that decision for me and my husband.

Instead of political grandstanding, we should listen to physicians like Dr. Rebecca Cohen from Aurora, an ob-gyn and an abortion provider. As she puts it, “The 20-week abortion ban is intrusive, based on lies, and serves only to further stigmatize reproductive choice, not to protect women or children. Denying women this safe, legal, merciful option and instead forcing them to suffer a stillbirth or carry a terminally ill pregnancy through their due date is cruel and misguided.”

My experience has illuminated how important it is that women and their families have the right to make their own choices safely and privately. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and to make their voice heard, but the policies proposed in these types of bills are meant to vilify and intimidate women and their health care providers. The rhetoric we’ve heard in Congress is not the way to have a constructive conversation about reproductive health choices.

And outside the political rhetoric, intimidation tactics are increasingly used on patients and providers nationwide. According to a recent survey from the Feminist Majority Foundation, threats and violence against clinics have skyrocketed since 2014, from 19.7 percent to 34.2 percent, with half of the clinics in the U.S. experiencing at least one incident of severe violence and/or harassment — including the attack in Colorado Springs.

For some politicians, these assaults on a woman’s right to an abortion are an opportunity to stand on a moral soapbox. But for me, as a legislator who has had an abortion, these attacks are personal.

When we talk about the importance of electing women and their lived experiences, I know what it means. I understand why being pro-choice isn’t a hypothetical and that 20-week abortion bans aren’t an abstract concept. It was a decision I had to make with my physician and my family. And it was the right one to make.

I believe in love and compassion. My lost son and my experience showed me that. I stand with all women who need access to reproductive health care, and those who provide it compassionately without judgment.

Sens. Bennet and Gardner, out of respect for me and for Colorado women and families, if this legislation comes up for a vote, please vote “no.”

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/06/banning-late-term-abortions-is-cruel-i-know-because-ive-had-one/?utm_source=nar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB