How abortion is provided to the public – a case study for the state of the art in the fight against a bill that prohibits anyone from accessing abortion information

A bill was introduced in Texas last month that would make it illegal for someone to tell you how to get an abortion. The bill would also require internet service providers to block websites offering content like that in Marty’s book, allow prosecution of abortion pill “distribution networks,” and permit anyone to sue a person who shared anything about how to access a medical abortion. Texas’s law that offers a cash bounty to anyone who helps facilitate access to abortion care was the inspiration for the proposal.

Three male Republican representatives introduced a proposal to prohibit Texans from accessing information about abortion, which is the most ambitious attempt to date to limit how quickly people learn about abortion access in the US. But it is not without precedent. Arizona has had a ban on ads for abortion services since the 19th century. Louisiana, Virginia, Michigan, and California all have restrictions on advertising the procedure.

“It’s scaring the platforms and the ISPs and the speakers into thinking that they can be liable for the speech,” says Jennifer Pinsof, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “So it’s having a chilling effect and advancing the goal of keeping this information from being accessible to people online.”

Under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the US, free speech is protected while technology platforms can not be held responsible for userposted content.

The Supreme Court’s ruling to block mifepristone is antithetical to doctors and the abortion-rights fight in the nation’s capital

Abortion rights supporters around the country and in the nation’s capital are holding rallies Saturday and Sunday against the decision by a Texas judge to reverse the FDA’s approval of a key abortion drug.

The Supreme Court’s decision Friday to stay the decision of the District Judge does not change the fact that portions of the injunction will not have gone into effect on Saturday.

Nothing has changed since the Supreme Court’s stay began, and it’s not clear which states will be covered by the ruling if the court doesn’t block it.

“These judges aren’t doctors and neither are they,” Laura Meyers, the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, said at the rally, pointing at the anti-abortion-rights protesters nearby.

Medication abortions now account for more than half of U.S. abortions, making them increasingly the focus of the legal fight over abortion rights. They are more discreet and cost less than other forms of abortion.

Several doctors who spoke in Washington said medical professionals can’t provide high-quality, evidence-based care where abortion restrictions are in effect. Dr. Divya Shenoy, a director of primary care at the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, called the move to ban mifepristone “antithetical to my medical practice.”

“My patients should have the same standard of care and be able to receive the kind of health care they can or cannot receive without being judged or stigmatized,” Shenoy said.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/15/1170268300/planned-parenthood-rally-abortion-pill-mifepristone-supreme-court

The Impact of Abortion Bans on Black and Latino Health and the Status of the Body, Mind and Spirit of an ABOUTED Mimistone Patient

Brittany House, a patient advocate pursuing a master’s degree in public health, said her medication abortion several years ago allowed her to build the life and career she wanted and to get out of an abusive relationship. Mifepristone was a part of “the best care for my 21-year-old body, mind and spirit,” she said.

House said states with abortion bans have worse health outcomes for Black mothers and babies, and she said Black, Indigenous and Latino communities are “by far the most at risk with the elimination of the safest form of abortion care.”