A wave of newly approved abortion restrictions in the southeastern US has sent providers scrambling to reconfigure their services for a region with already severely limited access.
Stiff limitations enacted in South Carolina and pending in North Carolina and Florida — states that had been holdouts providing wider access to the procedure — are threatening to further delay abortions as appointments pile up and doctors work to understand the latest constraints.
“There’s really going to be no way for the whole abortion-providing ecosystem to manage it all,” Planned Parenthood South Atlantic president Jenny Black said.
Black, who oversees the organization’s work in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and parts of Virginia, said that providers have had to quickly determine how to comply with the pending laws amid the “decimation of abortion access across the South.”
She said new restrictions would compound the stressors on a system that was already seeing lengthy waiting periods in North Carolina driven by an influx of patients from Georgia and Tennessee.
Abortion is severely restricted in much of the South, including bans throughout pregnancy in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. In Georgia, it is allowed only in the first six weeks.
South Carolina joined its neighbors rolling back the procedure on Thursday when the governor signed a bill banning most abortions at six weeks of pregnancy. Providers quickly filed a lawsuit seeking to block the law that resembles one already deemed a violation of the state constitution’s right to privacy by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
“This is a great day for life in South Carolina, but the fight is not over. We stand ready to defend this legislation against any challenges and are confident we will succeed,” Republican South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster said in a statement.
A report released early last month by the Society of Family Planning found rising numbers of abortions in states near those with the deepest restrictions but where abortion had remained largely legal. Florida and North Carolina were among the states with the biggest increases — and among those where new limits are pending.
Most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy would be banned in North Carolina beginning from July 1 and a six-week ban in Florida is to take effect only if the state’s current 15-week ban is upheld by the state supreme court.
South Carolina had also proven to be a key destination for people seeking abortions.
Provisional South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control data showed that larger numbers of out-of-state patients after the state’s highest court overturned previous restrictions and left abortion legal through 22 weeks.
The new law would change that status, Middlebury College economics professor Caitlin Myers said.
Myers, who studies the effects of reproductive policies, said limited evidence suggests that about half of the people who want abortions would not be able to make the six-week threshold.
“It’s likely to end up sending a lot of desperate people seeking abortions even farther distances and result in even greater congestion at the facilities that are left to receive them,” Myers said.
Jessica Tarleton, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Charleston, South Carolina, said she anticipates sending patients outside the state for abortions.
She said the new law would disproportionately affect those who lack financial means for childcare, hotels and air travel.
Most women who get abortions are already mothers, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showed.
The action came as many state legislatures convene for their first regular sessions since the US Supreme Court struck federal abortion protections. Over the past two months, Republican officials in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida have pushed Virginia closer to being a regional outlier as a place with relatively permissive access.
The tide of state-level activity has been welcomed by anti-abortion groups who had long chipped away at access.
Caitlin Connors, southern regional director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the legislative changes were victories made possible by last year’s ruling.
“We are officially in an era where states who have tried to pass pro-life legislation — laws that would protect unborn children, laws that would also implement services for moms and families and babies — to finally be able to be enacted and not be under the chokehold of the Roe v Wade decision,” Connors said.
That shifting landscape has also heightened uncertainty among providers that has kept them from expanding services, and likely would prevent some patients from getting abortions as doctors weigh what is and is not permissible, Myers said.
Erica Pettigrew, a family doctor in North Carolina, said the new constraints would make it much more difficult for her to help patients navigate the system.
Although North Carolina Republicans pitched the new 12-week limit as a middle-ground change, Pettigrew said that other provisions make it much more restrictive.
New hurdles require that women make in-person visits to a medical professional at least 72 hours before the procedure. The three-day waiting period could previously be initiated over the telephone. The law also requires a doctor to schedule a follow-up visit for women who have a medically induced abortion, increasing the hardship on those who travel from other states.
The regulations would make it more difficult to advise patients on their options, especially when waiting periods already spanned two to four weeks in some cases, she said.
Other delays might result from what Pettigrew called unclear exceptions for certain life-threatening conditions.
“Now we’re in this horrible purgatory of trying to figure out how to interpret it, how we can comply with the law,” Pettigrew said. “There’s so many unknowns.”
Immediate reproductive care has been slowed in states restricting abortion, and Tarleton said South Carolina would be no different. The new law mandates that doctors document their rationale for inducing an abortion under a list of excepted circumstances and make “reasonable efforts” to avoid the procedure.
She said she expects to seek legal advice when treating patients for early pregnancy complications and miscarriages, which she fears would increase maternal mortality in a region where many states already report some of the nation’s worst rates.
“We are likely to see sicker pregnant patients, sicker babies,” Tarleton said. “That’s going to start happening now that there’s really no place to turn in the southeast for this kind of care.”
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS