Report: La. abortion restrictions not based on scientific facts
22nd May 2017 · 0 Comments
By Sharon Armstrong
Contributing Writer
It could be said that separating fact from fiction seems to have become America’s national pastime since President Donald Trump took office in January 2017, but when it comes to reproductive rights, separating facts from “alt-facts” has never been more important, according to a report released on May 9 by the Guttmacher Institute, a leading national research and policy organization that concentrates on sexual and reproductive health.
Authored by Guttmacher Institute experts Rachel Benson Gold and Elizabeth Nash, the report concerns a new study, titled “Flouting the Facts: State Abortion Restrictions Flying In The Face of Science,” on state-level anti-abortion laws that are not based on sound science, with a focus on Louisiana data.
As a response to that data, Lift Louisiana, a reproductive justice advocacy group, also launched a state-focused Lies into Law education campaign that addresses abortion restrictions that the group says are based on unsound science and or even outright lies. Lift also partnered with the National Partnership for Women & Families to launch the Lies into Law effort in Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma, states which have the highest number of non-science supported abortion restrictions, according to the study. Additional partners include the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund and the Trust Women Foundation, a Kansas- and Oklahoma-based organization.
In the first three months of 2017, according to the Guttmacher report, legislators introduced 1,503 provisions related to reproductive health. While 405 of these are described as “proactive measures seeking to expand access to other sexual and reproductive health services,” 431 are classified as seeking to restrict access to abortion services.
Most states require healthcare facilities, including those that provide abortion services, to meet certain patient safety standards. However, over the last few years, some states have imposed restrictions specific to abortion providers that, according to the report, do not improve safety, significantly limit access to abortion services and are premised on assertions not supported by “rigorous scientific evidence.”
While Texas and Kansas take the lead when it comes to the number of scientifically unsupported restrictions on access to abortion care (with eight out of the 10 most common restriction categories), Louisiana, Oklahoma and South Dakota tie in close seconds with seven restrictions that the report states are in direct conflict with proven science.
According to the report, more than half of U.S. women of reproductive age live in states with abortion restrictions that have either moderate of major conflict with science.
Since 2011, more than half of Louisiana’s clinics have been forced to close due to these regulations, leaving just three to service the needs of almost one million women of reproductive age in the state.
While restrictions vary from state to state, the ten most common statewide categories include imposing ambulatory surgical center (ASC) standards for clinics and hospital admitting privileges — a measure that was struck down in Texas by the Supreme Court in 2016; the banning of the use of telemedicine to administer medication abortion; allowing only physicians to perform abortions; suggestions that abortion can cause future mental health issues, fertility issues, and an increased chance of developing cancer; extended mandatory waiting periods before receiving an abortion; and assertions that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks post-fertilization.
Some of Louisiana’s restrictions that, according to the report, fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny include the ASC standard, the barring of telemedicine, and a mandatory 72-hour waiting period – one of the longest in the U.S. – and counseling on mental health.
When viewed in isolation, many of these stipulations might give the appearance of being reasonable, said Michelle Erenberg, executive director of Lift Louisiana, however the point of the restrictions is not to improve women’s health but to put barriers in place to prevent women from accessing abortion care at all.
“The people who crafted these laws did so in such a way as to slowly chip away at access to abortion by adding more requirements to the facilities that provide the procedure, by adding more requirements for the doctors who provide this service, and by throwing up barriers for women who are seeking this procedure,” said Erenberg.
“What we have seen in Louisiana is that the enactment of these restrictions has only been successful in shutting down clinics, not increasing the safety of care that women receive at those clinics,” Erenberg said.
According to Erenberg, the closure of clinics puts up both logistical and financial barriers for women.
“What the closure of clinics means for women in Louisiana is that they have to travel, on average, 50 miles or more to get to the nearest clinic, and many women have to travel much farther than that,” said Erenberg. “A woman living in St. Charles would have to travel 130 miles one way to reach the nearest clinic. These logistical burdens increase the financial resources needed for a woman to reach and pay for the procedure. And the result is that many women won’t be able to navigate those barriers and so will be restricted from accessing abortion care.”
Erenberg stressed the importance of avoiding looking at abortion laws in isolation.
“We really need to look at these laws as a whole, and I think that is what this report really tries to do, look at the whole package of these restrictions and reveal the cumulative impact of these laws, piled one on top of the other on the ability of abortion clinics to remain open and the ability of women to be able to access the procedure in a timely manner, and to be able to afford to have the procedure,” Erenberg said.
In response to the report, Benjamin Clapper, executive director of Louisiana Right to Life, said in a statement that the “Guttmacher Institutes new report should illustrate one fact for the nation: The abortion industry is interested in protecting abortion-on-demand.”
Clapper went on to say that as a “research arm of Planned Parenthood,” it should come as no surprise that the Guttmacher Institute “would do everything it can to discount even the most common-sense regulations that ensure the health and safety of women seeking abortion…”
“The fact is that ample pro-life legislative testimony from experts in the fields of medicine and social services was provided prior to the enactment of Louisiana laws criticized by the Guttmacher Institute,” said Clapper. “It was rare during deliberation on these bills for the abortion-on-demand organizations to present commensurate expert testimony, especially from a medical doctor perspective. Rather, they resorted to vague claims and recycled talking points.”
Report author Elizabeth Nash strongly disagrees with Clapper’s statement.
“Common sense is to follow the scientific evidence,” said Nash. “That is not what these laws do.”
The information cited in the report is both long-standing and well substantiated, said Nash. She went on to say that abortion restrictions, such as the ones currently in force in Louisiana hit hardest at young and low-income women, as well as those in rural areas.
“If you are using abortion counseling material that contains inaccurate information, simply to deter a woman from accessing abortion care, you are doing that woman a disservice,” said Nash. “If you are enacting abortion restrictions to keep clinic doors closed or limit access throughout the state, you are not benefitting women’s health.”
According to Nash, the long-term goal of the report is to furnish the public with information that will enable women to make informed decisions and also “to start a conversation on how to repeal restrictions that are based on false information.”
U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond, a New Orleans Democrat who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, stated that, despite the high emotional factor associated with abortion issues, the need for accurate information supported by credible science is essential.
“The problem is that many people who claim to be pro-life are really just pro-birth,” said Richmond. “I think the real question is how do we get to zero terminated pregnancies? Traditional pro-life people think that you do that by outlawing abortion. I think that would send rich people out of the country to have them, and it will send poor people packing to back alleys and unsanitary conditions that will put their lives at risk.”
According to Richmond, many restrictions, such as the ones listed in the report, were created as obstacles disguised as healthcare. Creating more “wraparound services” such as prenatal care, parental leave, as well as strengthening adoption and foster-care services would be more beneficial than misinformation, said Richmond.
“Unfortunately, especially in the South, people can get away with saying things that are not scientifically accurate as long as the issue is pro-life,” said Richmond. “I don’t think that gets us to a place where we can have an honest conversation on how we can get terminations to zero. And for those who do choose that route, don’t make it so the obstacles are so high to have it legally that people will choose illegal and dangerous methods.”
When asked by The Louisiana Weekly for a response in regards to abortion restrictions in Louisiana, the office of Congressman and U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise R-Jefferson stated:
“Congressman Scalise is unapologetically pro-life. He’s proud that Louisiana is among the most pro-life states in the nation, and he will continue to fight at the federal level to protect women and defend innocent human life.”
Scalise continued his backing of abortion restriction during 2017, supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36.), the Defund Planned Parenthood Act (H.R. 354), and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7).
According to Michelle Erenberg, the sole purpose of these bills is to make abortion prohibitively expensive by putting pressure on women’s abilities to pay for abortions and clinics’ abilities to offer the service.
“The fear of many of us who support women’s right to safe and legal abortion is that eventually we might have the right on paper but so few women will be able to access the procedure that it really won’t be a right in practice,” said Erenberg.
“Politicians are willing to disregard science and evidence, and it needs to stop. We are hopeful that the Lies into Laws campaign will help raise awareness about these dangerous restrictions and encourage Louisianians to fight back.”
More information about The Guttmacher Institute is available at https://www.guttmacher.org/
More information about Lift Louisiana is available at http://lift louisiana.org/about
More information about Louisiana Right to Life is available at http://www.prolifelouisiana.org/.
This article originally published in the May 22, 2017 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.
