Last week, we wrote about current federal legislative attempts to restrict women’s access to abortions. Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce committee voted 33-19 to pass one of those pieces of legislation on to the House for a full vote, HR 358 (the ironically named “Protect Life” Act). The bill would limit women’s ability to buy their own insurance coverage for abortion and could potentially mean that women seeking emergency care might be denied medically necessary abortions even if their lives are in danger.

Further reading:
‘Protect Life Act’ puts women’s lives at risk – The Hill’s Congress Blog
Statement from NARAL Pro-Choice America

Yesterday and today House committees are holding hearings on two controversial pieces of proposed legislation, HR3, and HR358, both of which attempt to reduce access to abortion.

Jennifer Steinhauers’s piece in the New York Times has the most succinct explanations of the two bills I’ve seen anywhere. On HR3, for which the hearing was held yesterday:

One bill, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would eliminate tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage if their plans offer abortion services, and would forbid women who use a flexible spending plan to use pre-tax dollars for abortions. Those restrictions would go well beyond current law prohibiting the use of federal money for abortion services.

HR3 is the same bill that included the “forcible” rape language, which was supposed to have been removed; it apparently had not been removed as of Tuesday. Video of the committee hearing is online with captioning.

The second bill HR358, focuses on federal funding and tax breaks related to abortion; the hearing is being held today. Steinhauer explains:

Another bill, sponsored by Mr. Pitts, addresses the health care overhaul head-on by prohibiting Americans who receive insurance through state exchanges from purchasing abortion coverage, even with their own money. The bill is essentially a resurrection of a provision in the House version of the health care law but was not in the Senate version.

The bill would also permit hospitals to refuse abortions to women, even in emergency situations, if such care would offend the conscience of the health care providers.

It’s difficult to “see” this last point upon reading the bill, but critics of the proposed legislation have suggested that provisions added to the bill could override EMTALA, a law that requires emergency departments to treat or transfer patients regardless of their ability to pay.

The hearing is currently being broadcast online. The National Abortion Federation has a statement from Mary Vargas sharing her personal take on the harmful effects of HR358.

Escrito por Christine; traducido por Ema Rosero del orginial en inglés Jan 19, 2011.

La mayoría de adolescentes y adultos sexualmente activos en los Estados Unidos utilizan métodos anticonceptivos y favorecen que la mujer haga por sí misma decisiones sobre su salud reproductiva. A pesar de este apoyo, los que se oponen a la planificación familiar y a los derechos de las mujeres han intentando presentarse como la verdadera voz de moralidad y han logrado avances políticos que amenazan la salud de la mujer.

Este año se celebró el 38vo aniversario de Roe vs. Wade el día 22 de enero. El grupo “Defensores para la salud de la mujer y la Campaña Cinta de Plata para que la mujer asuma sus derechos de reproducción y de justicia” (Silver Ribbon Campaign to Trust Women for Reproductive Rights and Justice) ha demostrado nuestra fortaleza y se ha reivindicado con respecto a los derechos que tiene la mujer para obtener servicios de salud.

La Campaña Cinta de Plata es el esfuerzo de docenas de organizaciones incluyendo Nuestros Cuerpos Nuestras Vidas, para darle prioridad a la ciencia sobre la ideología, ofrecerle a la mujer el apoyo debido sobre métodos para salud reproductiva, el acceso gratuito a anticonceptivos y el acceso al aborto legal.

Usted puede participar compartiendo la información a través de Twitter y el Facebook y llevando la cinta de plata “Confíe en la Mujer” a partir del 22 de enero hasta el 22 de febrero. Haga su propia cinta o puede hacer una donación a las organizaciones participantes para recibir una cinta.

Puede ir a la página de internet: OurSilverRibbon.org, para compartir su historia y mantenerse al día sobre los puntos de acción sometidas por organizaciones colaboradoras incluyendo un esfuerzo por agencias afiliadas a Planned Parenthood de California que ofrece la pastilla anticonceptiva disponible sin costo.  El grupo Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (Médicos a favor de la elección reproductiva y de salud) están presentando la Declaración de Derechos del Proveedor de Abortos (Abortion Provider’s Declaration of Rights), que usted puede firmar si desea apoyar a los miles de profesionales de salud que realizan abortos.

Ellen Shaffer, codirectora del Centro de Análisis de Políticas (Center for Policy Analysis) y la Dra. Sophia Yen, pediatra y especialista en medicina de adolescentes escribió un artículo para el Huffington Post en el que establece la manera como se ha politizado el derecho a la salud reproductiva y las formas diferentes en que la actual administración y los oponentes al aborto han restringido su acceso.

La mayoría de los adultos utilizan o han utilizado métodos anticonceptivos. Sin embargo, hasta el mejor método falla una vez en cien. La mitad de los embarazos no son planificados. Por lo menos una tercera parte de mujeres estadounidenses han tenido un aborto en sus vidas. La mayoría creen que los seguros médicos deberían cubrir abortos como bajo servicios de salud reproductiva. Ochenta y seis por ciento de aseguradores proveídos por empleadores cubren el aborto. En estos tiempos de dificultad económico es crucial que las familias tengan la opción de traer o no a un niño(a) al mundo.

Sin embargo, el aborto ha sido estigmatizado por un movimiento minoritario bien organizado y bien financiado, incluyendo grupos extremistas que promueven actos violentos. Nuestra salud reproductiva entonces se utiliza como una cuña, y la oposición se aprovecha de la ansiedad entre votantes causada por la economía y otros asuntos sociales para reclamar el apoyo a su ideología regresiva, anti-mujer y anti-auto determinación.

Vimos un presidente a favor del aborto quien firmó leyes restringiendo acceso al aborto en al menos tres maneras: en la ley de  reforma de salud, con una orden ejecutiva, y con un reglamento sobre los planes de salud del estado. A pesar del hecho de que la contracepción cabe bajo el área de salud preventivo la Administración se sintió obligada a convocar un grupo especial para determinar si los anticonceptivos podían hacerse disponibles bajo métodos de salud preventivo.

En la actualidad 87% de los condados carecen de proveedores de aborto. La carga recae duramente sobre los más vulnerables.

En su conclusión, indican que que estamos en mayoría los que confiamos en la mujer para elegir la mejor alternativa anticonceptiva para ella y que nos toca exigir nuestros derechos al respecto.

“Confíen en las mujeres” fue el lema adoptado por el Dr. George Tiller, proveedor de abortos quien fue  asesinado por el activista en contra del aborto Scott Roeder, el 31 de mayo de  2009. El serio compromiso de Tiller sobre la capacidad de la mujer tomar sus propias decisiones de salud reproductiva al consultar con su médico y familiares es un legado poderoso y duradero. Unirse a la campaña Cinta de Plata es un paso hacia adelante para garantizar que no demos pasos hacia atrás.

The majority of sexually active adolescents and adults in the United States use birth control and are in favor of women being able to make their own reproductive health decisions. Despite this support, opponents of family planning and women’s rights have tried to assert themselves as the true moral voice — and have made political gains that severely threaten women’s health.

This year, as women’s health advocates celebrate the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Jan. 22, the Silver Ribbon Campaign to Trust Women for Reproductive Rights and Justice has emerged as an opportunity to show our strength and claim our rights to the legal healthcare to which we are entitled.

The Silver Ribbon Campaign is the effort of dozens of organizations — including Our Bodies Ourselves — committed to prioritizing science over ideology and offering full support for reproductive healthcare; free access to birth control; and keeping abortion legal and accessible.

You can take part by spreading the word through Twitter and Facebook and by wearing a Trust Women Silver Ribbon from Jan. 22 – Feb. 22. Make your own or make a donation to one of the participating organizations to receive a ribbon.

At OurSilverRibbon.org, you can also share your story and stay up to date on action items submitted by partner organizations, including an effort by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California to make prescription birth control available without a co-pay. Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health is featuring an Abortion Provider’s Declaration of Rights that you can sign to show your support for the thousands of medical professionals who perform abortions.

Ellen Shaffer, co-director of the Center for Policy Analysis, and Dr. Sophia Yen, a pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist, wrote a piece this week at the Huffington Post that lays out how politicized the right to reproductive healthcare has become and the various ways in which both the current administration and abortion opponents have restricted access.

Most adults use or have used birth control. However, even the best birth control fails one time in a hundred. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned. At least a third of U.S. women have an abortion during their lives. Most adults believe that abortion care, a legal procedure. should be covered by health insurance as part of reproductive health services. 86% of employer-based health plans currently cover abortion. In these hard economic times, it is crucial that families have the choice whether to bring a child into the world.

But abortion has been stigmatized by a well-organized, well-funded minority movement, including extremists who provoke violent acts. Our reproductive health is used as a wedge issue, seizing on voters’ anxieties about the economy and social issues to claim support for the regressive, anti-woman, anti-self-determination ideology of the right.

We saw a pro-choice president sign laws restricting access to abortion in at least three different ways: In the health care reform law, an executive order, and a regulation on state health plans. Despite the obvious fact that contraception is prevention, the Administration felt compelled to convene a panel to determine if contraceptives count as preventive care.

87% of counties now have no abortion providers. The burden falls hardest on the most vulnerable.

In their conclusion, they note that those of us who trust women are the majority, and it’s up to us to demand our rights.

“Trust women” was a motto adopted by Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider who was murdered on May 31, 2009 by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder. Tiller’s strong commitment to the ability of women to make their own decisions in consult with their doctors and families is a powerful and lasting legacy. Joining the Silver Ribbon is one step toward ensuring we don’t take any more steps back.

This week, the Guttmacher Institute released a new report, “Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States, 2008,” [PDF] which details rates of abortion around the country, the number of abortion providers, percentages of counties in each state with no providers (87% for the national overall), types of locations (clinic, hospital, or physician offices) where abortions are being performed, cost, accessibility, the number of providers offering medication abortions, and other data.

I haven’t read the entire report yet, but from a quick review it seems to have a wealth of interesting data that may be of use to pro-choice advocates. Guttmacher’s news release notes that they detected a leveling off in the trend of decreasing abortion rates, and an increase in the percentage of nonhospital abortions that were performed via medication. The full report also includes data from the contacted providers on how many of them, outside of hospitals, had experienced harassment (in person or online), picketing, or threats. Fifty-seven percent of these providers reported some form of harassment, with picketing being the most common; 3% of providers reported having received bomb threats, and the same percent also reported that protesters had posted pictures of patients on the internet.

Not surprisingly, bills to roll back reproductive rights and defund related services are already being introduced in the now-more-Republican House of Representative and in state congresses. Via the Women’s Health Policy Alert, we learned that U.S. Representative Mike Pence has introduced the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act” (HR 217) to “to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions.”

In other words, clinics such as those run by Planned Parenthood (Pence’s stated target) should not receive any Title X funding in order to provide contraception, reproductive cancer screening, pregnancy testing, STI treatment, and other family planning services to low income people because they also perform abortions, although existing restrictions already prevent these clinics from using Title X money to perform abortions. The bill has more than 120 cosponsors in the House.

At the state level, last week Kentucky’s Senate passed SB9, a bill that requires women to submit to an ultrasound before they can be allowed to have an abortion, and that providers describe in detail what is seen while displaying the images so each woman can see them. The proposed bill allows for a woman to “avert her eyes” and makes some exceptions for medical emergencies, but makes receiving the ultrasound a requirement with no consideration as to whether it is deemed medically necessary by the provider or is acceptable to individual women (keeping in mind that early ultrasounds are typically transvaginal).

This piece of legislation, and others like it, seem to assume that the many women who seek abortions simply don’t know what they’re doing and should therefore be subjected to additional, non-medical requirements as the discretion of legislators rather than at the discretion of women and their providers. The bill’s sponsor makes this “women just don’t know what they’re doing” message explicitly clear, calling it “another step to assure the woman is fully informed about the implications of her decision” and labeling it an “informed consent” provision. Similar bills have been defeated in past years in the state, so it is not yet clear whether it will move beyond this stage.

Please let us know in the comments what bills affecting reproductive choice and justice have been introduced in your state.

The Center for American Progress has released a new report, “Separate and Unequal: The Hyde Amendment and Women of Color,” that seeks to draw attention to how policies such as the Hyde Amendment (which restricts federal funding for abortion) disproportionately affect low-income women, women of color, and young women. Toni M. Bond Leonard of Black Women for Reproductive Justice explains the consequences and injustice of such funding restrictions n the preface:

The Hyde Amendment is, perhaps, the most punitive and inhumane regulation imposed upon the reproductive lives of low-income women. Each day, scores of low-income women are forced to make a choice between using scarce resources to take care of themselves and their families or use those dollars to pay for an abortion. The landmark decision in Roe v. Wade may have held that women have the constitutional right to determine whether to carry a pregnancy to term, but the Hyde Amendment stripped that right away from low-income women, especially low-income women of color.

The report provides a clear overview of the Hyde Amendment, related federal abortion funding bans, and state funding restrictions. It also makes a compelling case for the repeal of Hyde, discusses reproductive health disparities, and provides an introduction to the history of reproduction-related discrimination in the United States.

It concludes:

Abortion funding restrictions, on their own, violate the constitutional, civil, and human rights of women of color. But funding
bans also interact with other policies and conditions that violate their rights to health and life, to equality and nondiscrimination, and to self-determination…

These attacks must not go unanswered. We must heed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s admonition that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Ending abortion funding restrictions will improve the lives of all women, but none more so than the women who have shouldered much more than their fair share of injustice.

The full report is well worth a read. Relatedly, Loretta Ross of SisterSong has an informative piece at On the Issues on the response to recent anti-abortion campaigns: “Fighting the Black Anti-Abortion Campaign: Trusting Black Women.”

Earlier this year, we noted that Princeton University would be hosting a conference on abortion, “Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair Minded Words,” with the goal of approaching the topic from different sides and looking for common ground. Frances Kissling has written a piece for Salon, How to Think About Abortion, on her experience of the event (Kissling was one of four organizers, and is the former President of Catholics for a Free Choice). She writes:

The singular focus of each side, one on women and the other on fetuses, was a complicating factor in achieving understanding at the Princeton meeting. It is perhaps an eternal divide, but it is becoming a richer and less polarized division as more partisans recognize that there are blind spots on both sides of the divide.

Kissling, essentially, indicates that we need to hear and think more about *both* the “value of fetal life” and the “coarseness toward women that has developed among those opposed to abortion as they pursue efforts to make it illegal.”

Amanda Marcotte has a fiery response to Kissling at RH Reality Check, calling arguments that anti-choice folks aren’t really anti-contraception and anti-woman “dishonest.” Marcotte writes:

It is understandable that anti-choicers would rather front like they’re pro-fetus instead of anti-woman, since the latter just doesn’t poll as well. But we can’t simply take people on just their word and leave it at that. We have to look at the whole picture, and if we do that, we have to see that their agenda is about far more than their concerns about the sufferings of pre-conscious fetuses. The actual actions against contraception, the actual rhetoric that casts grown women as children who need to be forced into motherhood for their own good, and the actual willingness to employ lies and other nefarious tactics for their ends should be considered.

Meanwhile, William Saletan at Salon seems to argue that all that’s needed for more peace, love, and understanding about abortion is for the pro-choice to just concede more extremely contentious ground. Backing up the suggestion of one conference attendee, Saletan writes:

Imagine a deal…in which pro-choicers accept restrictions on second-trimester abortions in exchange for pro-life support of contraception. Both concessions would hurt, but that’s what makes the deal fair. Many stalwarts on both sides would reject the trade—most notably, the Catholic Church—but their cooperation might prove unnecessary. Abortion would remain safe and legal, but it would be rarer. And in exchange for a 12-week deadline on elective abortions, women would get better options for avoiding pregnancy.

Or, you know, we could work on giving women better options for avoiding pregnancy while not stripping them of their right to be the ones negotiating their own choices about their bodies and pregnancies. But it’s probably easy to bargain away that decision-making power when you don’t have a uterus.

Saletan’s other suggestions for pro-choicers for achieving “common ground” include “Treat[ing] contraception as a moral practice,” “Reclaim[ing] stigma,” and “Target[ing] repeaters.” In his parallel piece for the anti-choice, he also urges them to “Trade abortion for contraception.” Yeah, right. As one of the bloggers at Abortion Gang points out in an open letter to Saletan, “these recommendations are not ‘common ground,’ but points of debate and contention.”

I couldn’t agree more. Positions on stigma and morals are going to be exceptionally polarized, not easy areas for finding common ground. The “offer” to trade a 12-week limit for better access to contraception would be a tremendous fight, and ignores a whole host of relevant factors, including access to providers and geographic constraints, mandatory waiting periods, time off from work and access to childcare, contraceptive failure, intimate partner abuse, rape, and more. The Abortion Gang writer urges Saletan to explore these factors by spending time actually talking to women, and learning about how informed consent scripts, forced ultrasounds, health insurance coverage, and other issues – aside from simple contraception access – influence the debate.

These are the real trenches in the abortion fights. Before talking about common ground between pro-lifers and pro-choicers why not spend some more time figuring out what these so-called unimportance nuances actually mean?

Indeed.

Next July, SisterSong – an organization that focuses on women of color and reproductive justice – is hosting a Let’s Talk About Sex Conference in Miami, FL.
The conference announcement explains that the program will include:

workshops and plenary sessions on topics such as birth control, senior sexuality, STDs, microbicides, gynecological health and wellness, erotica, militarism, youth sexuality, and more, all through a reproductive justice lens.

Discounted early registration is open through January 31. The call for papers/workshop proposals is open through January 30, and the scholarship application is open through March 1.

Earlier this year, we wrote about the Center for Reproductive Rights’s efforts to bring attention to young women’s continued lack of over-the-counter access to emergency contraception, despite a lack of evidence for the current age-based cutoff.

In March of 2009, a judge ordered the FDA to extend over-the-counter access to 17-year-olds, and also to reconsider these age restrictions in general. Last week, the Center filed a motion for civil contempt against the FDA arguing that the agency has failed to reconsider the age restrictions for women younger than 17.

The Center has background materials and more information at http://reproductiverights.org/en/feature/the-center-takes-the-fda-back-to-court. The group is encouraging supporters to contact the FDA asking the agency to “respect the findings of its own scientific review panel and take immediate action to end restrictions on emergency contraception.”

[In other we're-still-waiting news, almost two years after the administration announced that they were going to review the controversial "conscience clause," we still haven't seen any action. As far as I know, the proposed public comment period never happened.]

A few good commentaries on what last week’s midterm election results mean for reproductive rights:

Ms Magazine: Election 2010: Pro-Choice Sustains Big Losses; Abortion Not Deciding Factor notes that 13 of the Democratic house losses were anti-choice Democrats defeated by anti-choice Republicans; “Perhaps more telling, 24 House Democrats who lost had voted yes on the Stupak/Pitts Amendment.”

Lisa Hymas at Grist: What does the election mean for population and reproductive rights? points out that at least 10 governorships have flipped from pro-choice to anti-choice.

Miriam at Nuestra Vida, Nuestra Voz: 2010 Elections showed Latino/a impact, particularly in key Western races explains that:

In the aftermath of the election, the National Latina Institute will focus on saving the landmark health care law which will cover an estimated 9 million Latinos and increase funding for community health centers – a lifeline to many in our neighborhoods.

Will at Amplify: Bait-and-Switch Politics: Welcome to the 112th Congress. Will (depressingly) predicts:

The 112th Congress will be dominated by fights over social issues, from abortion to family planning to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Two years from now, we will look back on November 2, 2010, as the day that far-right Republicans used a wave of economic frustration to usher in the most anti-choice, anti-sex ed, anti-LGBT, anti-family planning, anti-contraception Congress in our nation’s history.

Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check: No Anti-Choice Mandate, But Don’t Worry, They’ll Make One Up. Jodi also has a bummer of a prediction: “We will see almost immediately a range of efforts to focus on restricting reproductive and sexual health and rights.”

Dionne Searcey at the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog: Colorado Voters Slam Personhood Measure (found via Reproductive Rights Prof Blog). The fetal personhood amendment in Colorado that we mentioned was defeated by a 3-1 margin. Searcey notes that a similar measure is on the ballot in Mississippi next year.

Nancy Northup at the Center for Reproductive Rights: Election Perspective from Nancy Northup, declares that “We will continue to work for the day when reproductive rights, like First Amendment rights, are protected from the outcome of elections.”

Former Democratic Representative Patricia Schroeder gave one of the plenary speeches at the recent Cochrane/Campbell meeting I attended. Her speech addressed the question, “Can Democracy survive?”

Schroeder spoke about the growth of angry rhetoric and of corporate funding in campaign advertising, as well as of some people’s apparent lack of belief in facts and science. She encouraged everyone to get MAD. But she’s not interested in inciting more shouting: Schroeder asked instead that we all work hard to Make a Difference.

That said, tomorrow’s election day. Get out there and vote. It’s the easiest starting point for engaging with democracy and making a difference!

While in Colorado, I heard a lot about the fetal personhood amendment on the ballot in that state. Amendment 62 defines a person as a person “from the beginning of the biological development of that human being” (a specific meaning for which has not been established).

A coalition of organizations has grouped together to oppose the amendment, which could possibly lead to restrictions not only on abortion, but also on common forms of birth control. A recent piece at Slate talks about the disturbing parallels to slavery being made by proponents of the amendment; continuing the problematic anti-abortion arguments targeting women of color that we’ve heard about elsewhere this year.

The abortion gang blog has links to a number of other ballot initiatives affecting women’s reproductive rights and access to healthcare.

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health released a new report, Latina Immigrant Women’s Access To Abortion: Insights from Interviews with Latina Grasstops Leaders [PDF], a qualitative report describing comments from community activists in Texas, Minnesota and New York. The report includes comments on topics including immigrant youth, access to information and referrals, and program funding.

NLIRH describes the following findings in their press release:

• Far from the stereotype of Latinas being anti-choice, these Latina community health leaders said that Latina immigrants wanted information and in some cases services related to abortion along with other health issues.
• Some community leaders said that Latina immigrant youth need emotional and practical support in making a decision about an unplanned pregnancy, and some immigrant teens do not have consistent resources for medically accurate, unbiased, culturally relevant pregnancy options counseling.
• Program grant restrictions that prohibit discussing abortion and a lack of resources for pregnancy options counseling make it difficult for Latina grasstops leaders to provide women with the full information and resources they would like to regarding unplanned pregnancy options.

Princeton University is hosting a conference this fall (October 15 & 16), “Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair Minded Words,” featuring speakers from around the country on the topic of abortion.

The stated goals of the conference are to:

1. Explore new ways to think and speak about abortion.
2. Approach issues related to abortion with open hearts and open minds.
3. Define more precisely areas of disagreement and work together on areas of common ground.
4. Get to know those on multiple sides of the issues more personally.

Speakers will include experts in law, bioethics, medicine, theology, and other topics. The full program is available online, and includes panels on topics including morality, prevention of unintended pregnancy, conscience clauses, Constitutionality, and other issues.

Early discounted registration ends September 8.

Last night, talk show host Rachel Maddow discussed tactics used by anti-choice activities to restrict women’s access to abortion. She focused on Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, who has issued an opinion [PDF] indicating that the state may impose additional restrictions on providers of first trimester abortions, including allowing the Board of Health to regulate them as “hospitals.” An article in the Roanoke Times explains:

Cuccinelli’s opinion notes that health centers specializing in reproductive services are characterized as physicians’ offices that are exempt from state hospital licensure requirements. Forcing those facilities to meet hospital standards would bring more demanding requirements for space, equipment and staffing that abortion rights supporters argue would limit access to legal, first-trimester abortions.

Maddow spoke to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia President Tarina Keene about what this could mean for abortion access in that state. Keene indicated that such regulations could potentially close 17 of the state’s 21 abortion clinics (making our past discussions of the difficulties provider face integrating abortion into their office practices all the more relevant). The organization has issued a statement arguing that:

This move has nothing to do with upholding the law or protecting women’s health, and everything to do with ideology and politics. Attorney General Cuccinelli is trying to accomplish through brute force of executive power what he couldn’t accomplish through the democratic process in his time as a State Senator – restricting women’s access to reproductive healthcare by shutting down abortion providers. These targeted regulations of abortion providers (TRAP) laws have nothing to do with safety and have everything to do with ideology.

Those who support the change will inevitably ask, “Don’t you want women to be as safe as possible when they have abortions?” Of course pro-choice women’s health and reproductive rights advocates want abortion to be safe. But this seemingly innocuous question ignores the fact that those pushing for such changes are working to restrict abortion access, rather than responding to any demonstrated need for improved facilities.

As Keene observes in the interview, “They have hijacked the language, and, unfortunately, what they’ve also done is make people feel like abortion is dangerous and it’s also scary.”

In reality, the data shows that legal abortion in the first trimester is very safe — far safer than continuing a pregnancy.

View the full interview (with transcript) below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy