Abortions Later in Pregnancy

Published: Dec 05, 2019

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print
Key Takeaways

• Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. Typically, these procedures cost well over $1,000, excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days, and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.
• Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.
• Roe v. Wade made the concept of viability critical to the regulation of abortion, particularly when it comes to abortions later in pregnancy. Viability is not set at a specific date in the pregnancy, rather multiple factors play into the determination of viability, including gestational age, fetal weight and sex, and medical interventions available.
• Many states have passed a range of laws that restrict access to abortions later in pregnancy, by either placing gestational age limits on abortion and/or by banning clinicians from performing certain procedures.

Introduction
Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestational age are rare. They are often difficult to obtain, as they are typically costly, time-intensive and only performed by a small subset of abortion providers. Yet these abortions receive a disproportionate amount of attention in the news, policy and the law, and discussions on this topic are often fraught with misinformation; for example, intense public discussions have been sparked after several policymakers have theorized about abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth.” In reality, these scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal, in the U.S. Discussion of this topic is further obscured due to the terms sometimes used to describe abortions later in pregnancy– including “late-term,” “post-viability,” “partial birth,” “dismemberment” and “born-alive” abortions—despite many medical professionals criticizing and opposing their use. This fact sheet explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, how the concepts of viability and fetal pain play into this topic, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy.

Clarifying Pregnancy Dating: pregnancies are measured using gestational age (GA), calculated in days and weeks since the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP). Since some people do not know the date of their LMP, ultrasound can also be used to calculate GA. Post-fertilization or fertilization age refers to the time since the egg and sperm fused to create a fertilized egg. Fertilization occurs approximately 2 weeks after menses, thus gestational age by LMP predates fertilization age by ~2 weeks. By convention, gestational age is used to discuss pregnancy dating as most pregnant individuals know their LMP, however certain abortion regulations reference fertilization age instead.

What is a so-called “late-term” abortion?
“Late term” abortion typically refers to abortions obtained at or after 21 weeks, however it is not an accepted medical term, nor is there a consensus around to which gestational ages it refers. Members of the medical community have criticized the term “late-term” abortion, as it implies abortions are taking place after a pregnancy has reached “term” (37 weeks) or “late term” (>41 weeks) which is false. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has written that “late-term abortion” has no medical meaning and should not be used in clinical or legal settings. As such, we will refer to abortions occurring at ≥21 weeks gestation as abortions later in pregnancy, but it should be noted that 21 weeks is a largely arbitrary cutoff based on how the CDC collects data on abortions. Abortions at this stage in pregnancy are sometimes referred to as “later abortions” by the medical community as well.

What is viability? Why does it matter for abortions later in pregnancy?
Abortions later in pregnancy have been highly debated, in part because some people believe that this stage of pregnancy abuts the time around viability. In 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the U.S., and in the process made “viability” the delineating factor in the abortion debate; before viability, a person has the right to obtain an abortion, whereas after viability, the state can restrict access to abortion in the interest of protecting the potential for human life, except in cases of health or life endangerment of the pregnant person.

The Supreme court made clear in Roe v. Wade that the courts are not in a position to assess when life begins and when viability has been reached, writing, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” (Roe v. Wade) Given viability is case dependent and is only a possibility or probability of survival, rather than a guarantee of survival, the decision in Roe v. Wade left the right to an abortion after viability up to individual states to determine.

In a subsequent Supreme Court case on abortion, the court defined viability as follows:

“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
Viability depends on many factors, including gestational age, fetal weight and sex, and medical interventions available. While viability does not refer to a specific gestational age, it is often presumed at 24 weeks gestation, with “periviability” referring to the time around viability (20 to 26 weeks gestation). For periviable births, the hospital at which the infant is delivered can greatly affect viability, and the patient’s insurance coverage may dictate where they can seek care. Infants born in resource-rich settings have a higher likelihood of survival than those born in resource-poor settings. This is in part due to access to neonatologists and maternal-fetal-medicine doctors, but also due to hospital-specific policies; in a study of 24 academic hospitals, active treatment for infants born at 22 weeks ranged from 0% to 100% depending on the hospital, showing that the criteria used to determine viability at one hospital may not be the same at another. If time allows and if the pregnant individual is clinically stable, they may be transferred to a facility better equipped for neonatal resuscitation before delivery, however this is not always possible. Further, insurance coverage and reimbursement for transfers in care varies by state and insurance plan.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court wrote that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks), but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” With medical advances, extremely preterm infants can now survive at lower gestational ages than previously thought possible, particularly at hospitals with Level IV neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The question we come up against is this: with viability possible at lower gestational ages, will abortions be prohibited at lower gestational ages as well? Many favor leaving that decision up to the patient and their provider, given viability depends on the individual pregnancy. Others, including some policymakers, desire early gestational age limits on abortion, well before the possibility of viability. In subsequent sections, we outline policies that regulate the provision of abortions later in pregnancy, including gestational age restrictions.

How common are abortions later in pregnancy?
Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestation are rare. According to the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Data, the vast majority of abortions (91%) occur at or before 13 weeks gestation, while 7.7% occur from weeks 14 to 20 gestation, and just 1.2% of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks (Figure 1). This amounts to approximately 5,200 abortions per year occurring at or after 21 weeks, however this is an underestimate as only 33 reporting areas report abortions to the CDC by gestational age. The percentage of abortions occurring at or before 13 weeks gestation has remained stable over the last few decades at 91-92%, however within this timeframe, more abortions are occurring earlier in pregnancy, at or before 8 weeks. This is likely in part due to the greater availability of medication abortions over the last two decades.


Figure 1: The Vast Majority of Abortions Occur Early in Pregnancy

The CDC does not elaborate on the breakdown by gestational age for abortions occurring past 21 weeks, but it is likely that the vast majority occur soon after 21 weeks rather than in the later in the pregnancy. While very limited data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a historic low, and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased.

Why do people have abortions later in pregnancy?
Non-Medical Reasons: Individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy for a number of reasons. As part of the Turnaway study out of the University of California San Francisco, from 2008-2010 over 440 women were asked about why they experienced delays in obtaining abortion care, if any (Figure 2). Almost half of individuals who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did not suspect they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, and other barriers to care included lack of information about where to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage and inability to pay for the procedure. This is unsurprising, given abortions can be cost-prohibitive for many; in a study from 2011-2012, the median cost of a surgical abortion at 10 weeks was $495, jumping to $1,350 at 20 weeks (range $750-$5,000) excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. Yet the Federal Reserve Board found 40% of U.S. adults do not have enough in savings to pay for a $400 emergency expense, meaning many individuals may need to delay having an abortion until they can raise the necessary funds.


Figure 2: Many Factors Contribute to Delays in Obtaining Abortion Care

Additionally, of all the abortion-providing facilities in the U.S., only 34% offer abortions at 20 weeks and just 16% at 24 weeks, meaning individuals may need to travel a significant distance to find an available, trained provider. Abortions at this stage also typically require two days to complete with inpatient care, as opposed to outpatient or at-home management that is possible earlier in pregnancy.1 In the years since these data were collected, dozens of abortion restrictions have been enacted across the county, including mandated waiting periods; it is therefore possible that individuals seeking abortion today may face even more delays in care than these data reflect.

Fetal Anomalies: Individuals also seek abortions later in pregnancy due to medical reasons. With medical advances, many genetic fetal anomalies can be detected early in pregnancy; for example, chorionic villus sampling can diagnose Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis as earlier as 10 weeks gestation. Structural fetal anomalies, however, are often detected much later in pregnancy. As part of routine care, a fetal anatomy scan is performed around 20 weeks, which entails ultrasound imaging of all the developing organs. Many structural anomalies are discovered at this time that would not have been apparent previously. A proportion of these are lethal fetal anomalies, meaning that the fetus will almost certainly die before or shortly after birth, meaning the fetus may be nonviable.2 In these cases, many individuals wish to terminate their pregnancies, rather than carrying the pregnancy until the fetus or newborn passes away. Very often these pregnancies are desired, making this decision exceedingly difficult for parents. Inadequate data exist to know how many abortions later in pregnancy occur due to fetal anomalies, but a study by Washington University Hospital showed almost all women whose fetuses had lethal fetal anomalies chose to terminate their pregnancies.

A study of maternal fetal medicine (MFM) doctors—specialists who manage pregnancies with fetal anomalies— found most agreed that termination of pregnancy due to a lethal fetal anomaly should be allowed in all circumstances (76%). The majority (75%) discuss abortion as a management option soon after diagnosing a lethal fetal anomaly, but services for terminating pregnancies in these scenarios are limited. Only 40% of MFMs worked at healthcare centers offering abortions past 24 weeks for lethal fetal anomalies. An additional 12% knew of available services <50 miles away.

Health Risk to the Pregnant Person: Life threatening conditions may also develop later in pregnancy. These include conditions like early severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer requiring prompt treatment, and intrauterine infection (chorioamnionitis) often in conjunction with premature rupture of the amniotic sac (PPROM). If these conditions arise before the fetus is viable, the pregnant individual may pursue termination of pregnancy to preserve their own health. If these conditions arise after the fetus is considered viable, Roe v. Wade still protects the right for these individuals to obtain an abortion in cases of health or life endangerment, however it may be difficult to find a provider for this service as previously mentioned. Typically every effort is made to save the life of both the pregnant individual and the fetus, pursuing delivery rather than abortion.

How do states regulate abortions later in pregnancy?
A few states have sought to expand access to abortions later in pregnancy. The New York Reproductive Health Act enacted in January 2019 expands protections for abortion providers and pregnant individuals who have abortions after 24 weeks in cases of health or life endangerment or lethal fetal anomalies. Virginia similarly proposed loosening restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy, by reducing the number of physicians who would need to approve an abortion after 28 weeks gestation from three to one, and by broadening maternal exceptions to include more general threats to mental and physical health. This bill failed to pass, but sparked national discussion about regulation of abortions later in pregnancy.

Many states have directed their efforts in the opposite direction, aiming to increase restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy. States most often do so by (1) placing gestational age limits on abortion, and/or (2) restricting the methods providers can use to perform abortions later in pregnancy. In discussion of these laws, it is important to note that most policymakers are not clinicians, therefore many of the terms used to discuss abortions later in pregnancy are designed to communicate a political message, not a precise medical concept. In the Appendix, we mention several terms written into policy and the law so that readers may be familiar with their meaning, but they are not medical terms.

Abortion bans by gestational age
43 states prohibit abortions after a certain point in pregnancy, with almost half of states prohibiting abortion at “viability” or when viability is often presumed, at 24 weeks. Other states seek earlier gestational age limits on abortion. For example, so-called “heartbeat” bans propose banning abortion after the detectable presence of cardiac activity as early as 6 weeks gestation, months before viability. To date, all such “heartbeat” bans, along with others that seek to ban abortions before 20 weeks, are not in effect due to ongoing or resolved litigation. However, some states have enacted abortion bans from 20-22 weeks gestational age, using the rationale of fetal pain.

Fetal Pain
Many states restrict abortions at 22 weeks gestational age or 20 weeks post-fertilization, arguing the fetus has the ability to feel pain at this point in development, contrary to medical evidence. A systematic review of literature on fetal pain found that pain perception is unlikely before weeks 29 or 30 gestational age. ACOG has found “no legitimate scientific data or information” that supports the assertion that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks post-fertilization, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also concluded fetal pain is not possible before 24 weeks, given immature brain development and neural networks.

Despite the medical evidence, policymakers have enacted gestational limits using the rationale that a fetus can feel pain at earlier stages in pregnancy. Mississippi bans abortion at 20 weeks gestation while abortion at 22 weeks gestation is banned by 17 other states (AL, AR, GA, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, NE, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, WV, WI). Additionally, 13 states provide verbal or written counseling on fetal pain as part of pre-abortion counseling (AK, AR, GA, IN, KS, LA, MN, MO, OK, SD, TX, UT, WI) (Figure 3). Some states mandate this information be given to those seeking abortion later in pregnancy, while in others, this counseling is required at any stage of pregnancy. In Utah legislation was introduced, but not passed, that would have required providers to administer “fetal anesthesia” during abortions later in pregnancy. There is, however, no standard practice for how to provide fetal anesthesia during abortions, nor is there adequate safety data on how this would affect pregnant individuals.


Figure 3: The Concept of Fetal Pain Plays a Role in Many Abortion Regulations

Bans on abortion methods used later in pregnancy
Almost all abortions performed at ≥21 weeks are performed by a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure (93–95% per CDC data). This involves dilating the cervix and evacuating the pregnancy tissue using forceps, with or without suction. D&Es can be performed safely up to at least 28 weeks gestational age, and when compared to their alternative of labor induction, have been found to be quicker and result in fewer complications; further, many women prefer surgical management as they will be sedated and do not have to undergo labor and delivery of the fetus.

Several states have sought to ban D&E procedures, which would significantly limit how providers are able to perform abortions later in pregnancy. Currently, Mississippi and West Virginia have enacted D&E bans, while bans are temporarily enjoined in 6 states and over 25 states have attempted to pass such legislation. 20 states ban dilation and extractions (D&Xs), a rarely used abortion procedure also referred to as an intact D&E or a “partial birth abortion” by policymakers (Appendix). In total, 21 states have enacted bans on abortion methods used later in pregnancy (Figure 4).


Figure 4: Many States Ban Certain Abortion Procedures Used Later in Pregnancy

In addition to gestational age limits and method bans used for abortions later in pregnancy, it is important to remember these abortions are also subject to the same regulations that apply for abortions earlier in pregnancy, including mandatory waiting periods and physician and hospital requirements.

The authors would like to acknowledge Jennifer Karlin, MD, PhD (University of California, San Francisco) for her review of an earlier draft of this fact sheet.
Appendix
Non-Medical Terminology Used to Describe Abortions in Policy and Law
Term Description
Late-term abortion: Non-medical term that typically refers to abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestational age, but does not consistently refer to a specific gestational age cutoff.
Post-viability abortion: Non-medical term used to refer to abortions occurring after the fetus is considered viable, and sometimes used synonymously with late-term abortions.
Born-alive abortion: Non-medical term used to refer to the exceedingly rare circumstance in which a newborn shows signs of life after an abortion, including breathing, a beating heart and voluntary movement. These cases are the subject of the proposed “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” mandating healthcare workers provide care to infants who show signs of life after an attempted abortion.
Partial birth abortion: Non-medical term often used to refer to a rarely used abortion procedure called dilation and extraction (D&X, also known an intact D&E). Has sometimes been used to refer to all dilation and evacuations (D&Es), the most common abortion procedure used from 14-28 weeks gestational age.
Dismemberment abortion: Non-medical term sometimes used to refer to D&Es.
NOTES: KFF does not endorse use of these terms.


Endnotes

1. Some facilities in the U.S. perform abortions later in pregnancy as outpatient procedures (up to certain gestational ages), but it is less common than offering inpatient care for these cases.
   
   ← Return to text
   
   
2. Consensus does not always exist as to which anomalies are fatal, and thus nonviable.
   
   ← Return to text
   

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

 

Excellent!
We can all agree.
Late term abortions (after 24 weeks) are exceedingly rare, almost never because of medical nonviability, are more expensive than following through with the pregnancy, and except for a D&C procedure not guaranteed to succeed.

As an aside, read the actual barbaric process for abortion after 24 weeks, to, you know, remove the "pregnancy material".
Lets not kid ourselves. At 24 weeks a D&C is brutal infanticide.

In any case, wonderful. For starters lets agree that abortion post 24 weeks should not just be a mothers/medicos decision.

 

We can easily see the changing stories. But the realties stsy the same.
Mostly old impotent whitd men who think they are all knowing and from their lofty perch can dictate to woman what she can do and what procedures doctors can use.

Neglecting of course that puts the woman's life and well being in danger. But women are just breeding stock anyway.

But a little lowet than cattle. I never kmew a rancher that would not sacrifice the life of a calf to save the cow even they had to cut it out

 

Attaboy. Demonize, attack, divert and propagandize.

The point about late term abortions is that once a fetus is viable the mother should no longer the only one to decide it's fate, wouldn't you agree?
Because killing a viable fetus would be infanticide, wouldn't it?
Like Jessica Burgess murdering her child and tossing the body (hopefully it was dead by then, eh?) in a fire to dispose of it.
You might recall that Jessica's baby was believed to be 29 weeks and viable, as are over 85% of fetus's at 29 weeks, and a majority of "medical abortions" (pills) fail to kill the fetus. You recall that from what you've posted, right?

Now you wouldn't be trying to declare that Jessica's desire to fit into her favorite jeans should take precedence over the life of that child, would you?
You wouldn't be trying to say that only Jessica and her doctor should get to decide if that child lives or dies, would you?
You wouldn't think that a bunch of "impotent old white men" should have nothing to say about that child's life, would you?

 

Pence-Founded Organization Spreads Lie Linking Abortion to Breast Cancer
Tessa Stuart
Mon, August 28, 2023 at 6:34 PM MDT·3 min read
78




A few months after a Trumpist mob marched through the halls of the U.S. Capitol calling for the summary execution of Mike Pence, the former vice president founded a political advocacy group dedicated to building on the “success of the last four years.”

Since its creation, Pence’s group, Advancing American Freedom, has defended the “junk fees” — hidden fees on everything from airfare to concert tickets — that the Biden administration has sought to eliminate. It’s promoted, in service of an argument against an EPA rule to lower greenhouse gas emissions, the dubious argument that “car seat laws function as unintentional ‘contraception.’” And, earlier this month, it revived the widely-discredited theory that abortion causes breast cancer.

On YouTube, Advancing American Freedom posted an hour-long Zoom presentation delivered to the group Anglicans for Life by the surgeon and anti-abortion activist Angela Lanfranchi, a staunch defender of the debunked claim that having an abortion increases one’s risk of developing breast cancer.


In her presentation, Lanfranchi focused on what she saw as a consequential moment in this debate. In 2003 — after dozens of anti-abortion lawmakers pressed George W. Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services over the issue — the National Cancer Institute convened more than 100 experts on pregnancy and breast cancer research for a three-day workshop to study the supposed link. At the summit, scientists reviewed “existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies” and concluded there was no evidence that having an abortion or miscarriage increases a person’s breast cancer risk.

Lanfranchi claimed that this was the moment, “they tried to really squash [the theory] by recommending there should be no more studies.” She likened the National Cancer Institute’s gathering of 100 plus scientists to “the book 100 Essays Against Einstein, instigated by the Nazi government in 1938 to discredit ‘Jewish science.’” (Later in the presentation, she compared herself to the biblical figure St. Sebastian, a Christian martyr who was shot through with arrows for speaking his truth.)

The vast majority of scientists and medical organizations who have studied the issue disagree with Lanfranchi’s claim. The most definitive study on the subject, published in 1997, before the NCI gathering, examined the health data of more than a million women in Denmark; it found “absolutely no effect” from abortion on breast cancer.

Since the National Cancer Institute held its summit in 2003, numerous other studies have arrived at the same conclusion including a study that year of data from more than 100,000 women in France; a 2004 Lancet meta-analysis of more than 50 existing studies; a 2006 study of a quarter million women in nine countries; a 2007 Harvard study of more than 100,000 women; and a 2008 study of California teachers, to name just a few.

The National Breast Cancer Coalition, the American Cancer Society, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization have all agreed no link exists.

Pence’s spokesman did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone’s request for comment about the video.

It is not the first time that Pence — now one of the most vocally anti-abortion candidates for president — has aligned himself with groups propagating misinformation about abortion and breast cancer. On the campaign trail in 2020, he visited Gateway Women’s Care, a crisis pregnancy center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, that erroneously identifies breast cancer as a “long term physical risk” of abortion.

For all of the breast cancer fear-mongering to which Pence has been adjacent, as a U.S. representative, he led a crusade to end Title X funding for Planned Parenthood — which, among other things, paid for breast exams. As part of the Trump administration, he saw that dream realized, as the network was forced out of the Title X program. The Biden administration has since reversed the Trump policy.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/pence-founded-organization-spreads-lie-003422019.html

 

Leave it to a proven lying despicable to point the finger at a deplorable and call them a liar.

 

If a woman living in a state where abortion is outlawed if she needs an abortion she can just go to another state. Just like abortion is a state's rights issue that is another lie. It is really just Sharia Law For Christians enforced by the American Taliban.


Alabama attorney general says he has right to prosecute people who facilitate travel for out-of-state abortions
Andy Rose, CNN
Thu, August 31, 2023 at 5:39 AM MDT·2 min read
290



Alex Wong/Getty Images


Alabama’s Republican attorney general said in a court filing that he has the right to prosecute people who make travel arrangements for pregnant women to have out-of-state abortions.

In a court filing Monday, attorneys for Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote that providing transportation for women in Alabama to leave the state to get an abortion could amount to a “criminal conspiracy.”

The court filing comes in response to lawsuits against Marshall that was filed in July from two women’s health centers and Yellowhammer Fund, an organization which says it provides “financial and practical support for those who are pregnant and require assistance.” The plaintiffs argue that Marshall violated their constitutional rights by publicly stating that organizations which help pregnant women in Alabama get an abortion out of state could be criminally investigated.

“Alabama can no more regulate out-of-state abortions than another state can deem its laws legalizing abortions to apply to Alabama,” the Yellowhammer Fund lawsuit argues.


Marshall is now asking Judge Myron Thompson to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that helping a woman avoid Alabama’s restrictions by facilitating an abortion elsewhere is a conspiracy.

“The conspiracy is what is being punished, even if the final conduct never occurs,” Marshall’s filing states. “That conduct is Alabama-based and is within Alabama’s power to prohibit.”

Alabama has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. In the wake of the Dobbs Supreme Court decision last summer, several Republican-led states passed strict anti-abortion laws, while several others, including Alabama, that had passed so-called trigger laws anticipating an eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade saw their new restrictions go into effect.

The filing got the attention of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who wrote on X Wednesday, “California will NOT cooperate with any state that attempts to prosecute women or doctors for receiving or providing reproductive care.”

Thompson has scheduled a hearing Tuesday to consider Marshall’s motion to dismiss the case.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-attorney-general-says-prosecute-113933721.html

 

And he probably also thinks anyone flying to Las Vegas to gamble can be prosecuted cause, you know, illegal in Alabama.
And he probably thinks anyone flying to California to smoke marijuana can be prosecuted cause, you know, illegal in Alabama.

Or maybe that's just more propaganda thrown out by despicables cause, you know, still butt hurt over states rights.

 

The hypocrisy and paradox of the anti abortion treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans is always ever present. They claim a fetus is an innocent human being and abortion amounts to murder. But at the same time they know that not allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest is so fiercely opposed by the vast majority of Americans they will be voted out of office if they don't allow those exceptions. And so in most cases they do allow those exceptions. Which proves their abortion lies are actually just politics. Because the fetus that results from rape and/or incest is also innocent but they allow murdering them.


GOP's Tudor Dixon: Here's what Trump told me privately about abortion during campaign

Matthew Chapman
August 30, 2023, 10:12 PM ET



Dixon for Governor on Facebook.


Republican Tudor Dixon, who ran unsuccessfully for governor of Michigan last year, says former President Donald Trump privately told her to ease off on extreme positions on abortion during the campaign, reported POLITICO on Wednesday.

"'You came to me and you said, ‘You got to talk differently about abortion.’ And we could not pivot, we could not pivot in time," she said during an interview with Trump on her podcast, which aired Tuesday," reported Kelly Garrity. "Dixon, a conservative media personality who has not held public office, was bolstered by Trump’s endorsement in her efforts to unseat incumbent Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in the swing state."

The Michigan governor's race was dominated by abortion following the Supreme Court's invalidation of Roe v. Wade, and voters were driven to the polls in part by a successful ballot referendum to codify abortion rights statewide.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

Dixon came under fire during the campaign for declining to say whether she would support allowing rape survivors to get abortions. She later acknowledged in interviews that the abortion issue likely played a role in her 10-point loss.

During the campaign, Dixon was also heavily criticized for her time hosting a show on the right-wing network Real America's Voice, where she pushed a number of racist conspiracy theories and defended the act of wearing blackface.

Dixon was not the only painful loss for Michigan Republicans in the 2022 election; Democrats also held the offices of attorney general and secretary of state, and gained control of the state legislature after years of Republican rule.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-dixon-abortion/

 

One of the ramifications of inventing a right wing false propaganda noise machine to try and outshout reality is in many cases they were too successful. They created a truth and fact free and delusional reality where most their followers reside and so they cannot see some really simple but very consequential realities.


And their decades long crusade to outlaw abortion is a perfect example of that. Because the reality they could not see is there are a couple of generations of women now that have not lived without a right to have an abortion. And the vast majority of older women either fought for the right to have control over their own bodies or at the very lest strongly support it. And they are refusing to have a bunch of mostly old impotent White men take their rights away over nothing more than their own personal religious beliefs. Women are mot willing to go back and are fighting back. Women were already the most powerful voting demographic in the nation. If women vote together whatever and whoever they vote against are going to lose.




Abortion battle to play out on multiple fronts in November
by Jared Gans - 09/03/23 6:00 AM ET

Share
Tweet




A battle over abortion rights is set to play out on multiple fronts this coming November with votes that could affect access to the procedure in several states.

Voters will go to the polls for key elections in half a dozen states this year, but abortion rights advocates in particular are looking at votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.


Those states are already being seen as bellwethers for where the country stands on the issue heading into 2024, as Democrats hope to rally voter anger from the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The most direct vote on abortion will come In Ohio with a measure on the ballot that would protect abortion rights in the state up to the point of viability, which usually comes just past halfway through a pregnancy.

“Abortion is going to continue to be a galvanizing reason for Ohio voters and voters in states across the country to turn out to vote. It’s incredibly important, and without the federal protection of Roe vs. Wade, it is up to individual voters to make this decision for themselves,” said Lauren Blauvelt, the vice president of government affairs and public advocacy for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio.

But the contests in Virginia and Pennsylvania will also be seen as proxy elections for the broader battle over abortion rights.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) has devoted much of his time and energy to working to help elect Republicans in this November’s state legislative races. He received a political boost in June after the slate of candidates he endorsed for these seats won their primaries.

But Youngkin has been unable to achieve the 15-week abortion ban he has called for with Democrats controlling the state Senate and Republicans controlling the state House.


Multiple sources familiar with Youngkin’s plans told NBC that passing such a bill, with exceptions for rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother, would be among his priorities if the GOP wins control of both houses.

The governor’s plans make the upcoming elections, in which all seats in both houses will be up for grabs, key to the future of abortion access in Virginia.

Pennsylvanians, meanwhile, will vote to fill a vacancy on the state Supreme Court left by the death of former Chief Justice Max Baer last year. Democrat Daniel McCaffrey is facing Republican Carolyn Carluccio, with Democrats looking to expand their 4-2 majority on the court and the GOP looking to close the gap.


The election will therefore not determine which party controls the court immediately but could be influential in the longer term.

Pennsylvania-based strategists said the election itself is also not as critical to abortion rights because the state legislature is split between the parties and Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has vowed to protect abortion access, so the court would likely not imminently have any abortion ban to review.

But they said the issue will likely play at least some role in the race with Democrats seeking to capitalize on the party’s success running on it during last year’s midterm elections.


Gubernatorial races are also happening in three conservative-leaning states: Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi. But all three are states with dominant GOP control of the legislature that have already severely restricted abortion, so the outcomes of those races would likely not affect abortion access.

But advocates in Ohio are trying to rally enthusiasm to pass the abortion measure and topple the state’s six-week ban that went into effect after Roe was overturned before being paused last fall. They successfully defeated a ballot measure in August that would have raised the threshold to amend the state constitution and make approving abortion protections more difficult.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) was a fierce advocate of that measure and opposes the abortion one. The most recent front in the process came after the state elections board, which LaRose leads, approved new language summarizing the amendment that would appear on the ballot.


The changes include referencing an “unborn child” instead of a “fetus” and “pregnant woman” instead of “pregnant patient.”

Blauvelt said the changes demonstrate what “anti-abortion politicians are willing to do” to try to stop the amendment from passing. She said the text of the amendment is “fairly short” and did not need to be summarized.

“That is very purposefully anti-abortion propaganda is meant to be misleading and confusing, and that is certainly a deep concern,” she said.


Abortion rights supporters have filed a lawsuit to the state Supreme Court to challenge the changes, arguing they were meant to mislead voters.

LaRose’s office pushed back against the lawsuit in a statement to The Hill after it was filed, saying that the board was following its constitutional requirement to adopt a summary of the measure, and the language chosen meets that requirement.

Blauvelt said the coalition behind the abortion measure, Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, is prepared to continue speaking with voters regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit and expects to be successful in getting the amendment approved.


Ohio-based GOP strategist Nick Everhart agreed that he would expect the abortion measure to pass even if the language from the board stands. He said the state has many college-educated voters who are “just are not in sync with sort of some of these under 15-week abortion laws.”

In the year since Roe was overturned, ballot measures have come up in several states across the political spectrum, and the side in favor of abortion rights has won each of them.

“There’s a huge delta between being a GOP [Republican] state and then winning on some of these more stringent abortion issues,” Everhart said.

But he added that he believes the issue could be less important for Republican candidates running in states like Virginia, where he said they only need to not completely ignore the issue. He said GOP candidates running in the state’s legislative races should have an answer ready if they are asked about it and can then focus on messaging that will help them win.

Pennsylvania Republican strategist Josh Novotney said he does not expect abortion to play as significant of a role in the state this year as it did last year, when state Sen. Doug Mastriano, who opposes abortion without exception, was the GOP nominee.

He said Mastriano’s candidacy was “definitely a motivator” for swing voters in the suburban parts of the state to vote against him and other Republicans. He said Democrats will “100 percent” try to run on abortion because the strategy was effective in 2022, but they will have a tougher challenge because there is no far-right candidate like Mastriano on the ballot.

“There’s really probably less of a motivator. It’s less raw in the last year than straight after the ruling,” Novotney said, referring to the end of Roe.

Daniel Fee, a Democratic strategist from Pennsylvania, noted that the “immediacy of the threat” to abortion rights is not present in the Keystone State as it is in other states. He said the state Supreme Court would not have a role to play unless legislation on the issue passes, which would not happen with the current makeup of the state government.

He drew a difference from Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s election earlier this year in Wisconsin that gave Democrats a majority in the state Supreme Court and could lead to an 1800s-era abortion ban being struck down.

Republicans in the state legislature have pushed for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, but that process would not involve the court. Constitutional amendments also must pass in consecutive legislative sessions before going to the voters, so the Democratic-controlled state House would likely prevent that from advancing.

But Fee added that because the justices are elected to 10-year terms, abortion still will and should be talked about because it could be relevant in the future.

“Is it an important issue that should be fully debated in this fall’s elections? 100,000,000 percent, because they’re 10-year terms. So there is a strong possibility that the next Supreme Court justice would have a vote [on abortion] at some point in theory,” he said.



https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...e-to-play-out-on-multiple-fronts-in-november/

 

.

 

Lying is the strategy and method of operation for the treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans. And so is cheating. But I think the Ohio treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican are seriously fucking up trying to cheat on abortion again. They already tried cheating once with a dishonest constitutional amendment which resulted in massive voter turn out and defeat of the amendment by about 60%. This time though voters won't just have a chance to vote for abortion rights. They will also get the chance to vote against the lying cheating treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans. And I bet they do.



Ohio’s Republican Leaders Are Trying to Trick Voters on Abortion
Sarah Stankorb
Wed, September 6, 2023 at 8:26 AM MDT·9 min read
534


For much of this year throughout Ohio, it seemed like you couldn’t go to a coffee shop, community event, or leave the local Kroger without someone with a clipboard asking if you’d signed a petition to get protections for reproductive rights on the ballot. After Roe v. Wade was struck down last year, a broad coalition of groups—including a range of reproductive rights groups, the ACLU of Ohio, and physicians—began a grassroots effort that swept across the state to put Ohioans’ right to abortion on the November ballot.

In this once-purple state turned mostly red, where Donald Trump won twice, almost 60 percent of voters still support a potential amendment to protect reproductive rights, including abortion. But Ohio is also a complex state that sometimes feels uniquely subject to political shadiness. Now Republican leaders are trying out a new barrage of tricks to make it harder for voters to have their voices heard—or even understand the basics of the decisions presented on their ballots.

At issue is the ballot measure meant to enshrine reproductive rights in the state’s constitution, which would ensure reproductive health care protections for Ohioans in a post-Roe world. For months, state Republican leaders have tirelessly worked to stymie the measure—which has mobilized left-leaning, independent, and center-right women voters—most recently, advocates say, by attempting to mislead voters at the ballot box.

As a case filed last week with the Ohio Supreme Court by Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights asserts, Ohio’s GOP-led Ballot Board at a meeting last month unlawfully reworded Issue 1, the ballot measure meant to enshrine reproductive rights in the state’s constitution, in order to “mislead, deceive, and defraud” voters. In short, the lawsuit claims the new language—what voters will read on their actual ballots—fails to align with the proposed amendment in terms of impartiality, accuracy, or completely describing the amendment’s effects.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

This is not the first time the state GOP has tried to waylay Issue 1. But now the battle over reproductive rights is coming to a head this election season in a fight over whether to allow voters to simply read, from the comfort of their voting booth, the truth about the amendment they’re actually voting on.

On June 25, 2022, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, a federal judge lifted an injunction that had been blocking a 2019 Ohio law banning abortion as early as six weeks’ gestation—effectively making it next to impossible for Ohioans to get an abortion. Often called the “Heartbeat Act,” the 2019 law, which had no exceptions for rape or incest, criminalized all abortions performed after fetal cardiac activity (not an actual heartbeat) could be detected. This is a point before many people even realize they are pregnant. Providers could face a fifth-degree felony charge and a year in prison. Polling shows that the majority of Ohioans are in opposition to the six-week ban.

“We went from being a state where our patients could get the care that they needed to [a] state with a really severe abortion ban within hours of the Dobbs decision, without any transitional period or preparation,” Lauren Beene, a Cleveland pediatrician and executive director of Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, told me. She said she knew doctors who were working in clinics or on call when they learned about the change in law. “The care they had been planning to provide … was now illegal.”

The Monday after Dobbs, Beene went to work and heard from the mother of a 13-year-old patient who was not sexually active. The mother called and asked if her daughter should go on birth control. “What if she was raped and got pregnant?” Beene remembers the mother asking. One of Beene’s other patients at the time was a 16-year-old who was roughly eight weeks pregnant; the teen had been trying to decide whether to continue her pregnancy. After the decision, Beene recalled, “I had to call her and say, you know, hey, if you are thinking about having an abortion, you can’t wait to have that conversation with the O.B. You have to go back to the abortion clinic today. And in fact, it might already be too late.”

Beene wrote an open letter to patients, thinking if she shared a physician’s perspective that might help explain the dangers of Ohio’s new trajectory. She posted it in a Facebook group for other doctors, which is where she met Marcella Azvedo, a pulmonologist and critical care doctor, who suggested starting a separate Facebook group to see if they could get other doctors involved. Soon, 1,000 physicians signed the letter, which they published in July as a full-page ad in The Columbus Dispatch.

Since Roe v. Wade was struck down, the battle over abortion in Ohio has made a winding path through the courts: The six-week abortion ban was eventually blocked by more injunctions, making abortion currently legal in Ohio up to about 22 weeks. But it’s inevitable that the fight will one day make its way to the right-leaning Ohio Supreme Court. Advocates like Beene felt the need to act fast.

“We felt that if we didn’t take action to get a constitutional amendment on the 2023 ballot, we knew that that six-week ban would most certainly go back into effect and we would reenter that crisis,” Beene said. “This just couldn’t wait until 2024—or at all.”

A team consisting of physicians and other medical professionals, plus constitutional and election attorneys—a group whose respective organizations later evolved into a coalition called Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights—began hashing out language for a potential amendment. Soon the coalition mobilized volunteers across the state to gather petition signatures. One of its groups, Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, paid some professional circulators in order to gather more. (Advocates clarify that the vast majority of folks out this spring with petitions were volunteers.)

After months of canvassing, in July 2023, the broad coalition together submitted over 700,000 signatures to the Ohio secretary of state’s office, a figure representing one in 11 Ohio voters. The measure garnered more than enough signatures to earn a spot on the November ballot.

But a last-ditch effort was already underway to undermine the November reproductive rights vote. Alarmed by the amount of mobilization around abortion, Republican lawmakers pushed forward a special August election in an attempt to get Ohioans to raise the threshold for constitutional amendments to a 60 percent supermajority of votes and raise the minimum requirement to get a citizen-driven amendment on the ballot. It was a clear attempt to make the passage of the abortion amendment harder. Secretary of State Frank LaRose openly stated in June that blocking the November abortion rights measure was “100 percent” the motivation behind the August special election. Throughout the summer, Ohioans were bombarded with conflicting and confusing messages fueled by roughly $35 million in funds from both sides dumped in from out of state.

The Ohio Senate had to allocate $15 million to cover costs for running the special election—but after all those dollars were spent, voters rejected the August initiative by a 57 to 43 percent margin. The November abortion amendment would be decided by a simple majority of Ohio voters.

However, just weeks after that attempt failed, on August 24, Ohio’s Ballot Board met to finalize the language that would appear on voters’ November ballots for the reproductive rights issue. LaRose, who chairs the board, explained his office had drafted new ballot language. “Having worked extensively on drafting this, I do believe it’s fair and accurate,” LaRose said.

The new ballot “summary” of the amendment, as proposed by LaRose, is longer than the actual amendment and pulls several rhetorical tricks on the reader. The amendment would guarantee the right of a person to continue their pregnancy and protects that decision from state interference (the choice would be protected, even when doing so may impact the person’s life or health). But the new ballot language erroneously flips this, claiming the amendment would “always allow an unborn child to be aborted … if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.”

The amendment also protects multiple categories of reproductive decisions, including contraception, fertility treatment, continuing a pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion, but the altered ballot language only lists abortion. While the amendment uses the medical term “fetus,” the new ballot language has substituted “unborn child,” phrasing that inserts personal views regarding the beginning of life. It’s also a term that was never used in the petitions to get the issue on the ballot.

“The Ballot Board’s members adopted politicized, distorted language for the amendment, exploiting their authority in a last-ditch effort to deceive and confuse Ohio voters ahead of the November vote on reproductive freedom,” Lauren Blauvelt, spokesperson for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.

Just hours after chairing the meeting that changed the ballot language, Secretary LaRose tweeted a factually misleading statement: “The radical left wants to amend Ohio’s constitution to allow abortion on demand up to the moment of birth.” In fact, after the point of fetal viability, the amendment would authorize the state to restrict abortion or prohibit it outright, but with an exemption to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.

It’s one thing to tweet deceptions. It’s another thing to bake them into the ballot. Ohio’s constitution requires ballot language to “properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted on.” Politics is supposed to be left out of the process.

During the Ohio Ballot Board meeting, LaRose did note that the full text of the amendment would be available at each polling place on a poster and would be published in newspapers. But alone in the voting booth, many Ohioans will be reviewing the amendment language for the first time—and likely not thinking to look around for alternative phrasing on a poster. Unless the Ohio Supreme Court intervenes, voters will be reading LaRose’s version.

Beene said that she and others involved in writing the amendment feel the new ballot language “is just complete political propaganda that is designed to deceive the voters and mislead the voters.

“We feel that the people of Ohio should be able to read the actual amendment,” she said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-republican-leaders-trying-trick-142652784.html

 

Treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans are panicked and desperate.



‘Absurd!’ MSNBC Analysts Roast Republicans Trying to Rebrand As ‘Pro-Baby’ On Anti-Abortion Rights
By Tommy ChristopherSep 9th, 2023, 11:05 am
1880 comments
MSNBC analysts Susan Del Percio and Victoria DeFrancesco Soto roasted Republicans who are trying to rebrand their opposition to abortion rights as something more like “pro-baby” than “pro-life.”

According to exclusive new reporting from NBC News, Senate Republicans are workshopping a new way to describe their stance as “pro-life” has failed to resonate — with one suggesting “pro-baby” as a jumping-off point. The abortion issue is largely credited for the 2022 midterm rout that saw an expected red wave dry up into a narrow House majority and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson — which effectively overturned Roe v. Wade.

On Tuesday’s edition of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, guest host Ryan Nobles asked DelPercio and DeFrancesco Soto if they believe the idea will work — they do not:

RYAN NOBLES: News reporting actually from Julie, who you just heard from on our Capitol Hill team. And it’s about Senate Republicans trying to stop this losing streak at the ballot box linked to the issue of abortion by trying to shift away from the phrase “pro-life,” even considering what they’re calling “pro-baby” policies. Is it realistic to think that you could get every Republican lawmaker behind that concept and make that the talking point?

SUSAN DEL PERCIO: Uh, no. Simply put, it’s not. And you’ll have the very, very conservative from conservative districts that for know they know that they’re going to win. Day in, day out, they are going to keep that pro-life position and say pro-life.

The idea of trying to rebrand it right now is absurd! They cannot do it. They know they’re in trouble. And instead of having trying to rebrand, they should really try and figure out how each candidate can come out on the issue, even if it’s not for a total ban and it’s 15 weeks. I’m not saying it’s right, but they’ve got to do something because otherwise women are going to come to the polls in droves. I mean, men, too. But this issue is going to be bigger than Joe Biden or Donald Trump, should he be the nominee.

RYAN NOBLES: Victoria, can it possibly work?

VICTORIA DEFRANCESCO SOTO: So let me take a step back and put on my political psychologist hat. And when I saw this news, it it was puzzling because traditionally, Republicans are the ones that are so good at branding. I mean, think of your Frank Luntzes. They just know how to package ideas and policies that might be distasteful, doing it in a way that connects with the public. And now what we’re seeing is that the branding is just no longer working and they’re starting to question themselves. So when a branding machine as powerful as that of the GOP is failing, it’s about substance. They’re going to have to do something about the policy. Tweaking the name isn’t going to do it.

Watch above via MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/absur...-rebrand-as-pro-baby-on-anti-abortion-rights/

 

Federal complaint filed against Oklahoma Children’s Hospital after woman denied emergency abortion
Kaylee Douglas/KFOR
Tue, September 12, 2023 at 12:59 PM MDT·3 min read
269



OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) against Oklahoma Children’s Hospital after a woman was denied an abortion for her life-threatening, nonviable pregnancy.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Jaci Statton, a 26-year-old Oklahoma woman who was diagnosed with a partial molar pregnancy—a condition where a nonviable embryo develops with a tumor that may become cancerous, and lead to severe bleeding, high blood pressure, preeclampsia and death.

‘

According to the complaint, Jaci was sent to the University of Oklahoma Medical Center for an abortion, but was denied because there was still fetal cardiac activity.


That hospital then transferred her to Oklahoma Children’s Hospital, which also refused to perform an emergency abortion despite confirming that Jaci faced a threat to her life without treatment, according to CRR.

Staff made it clear why they were refusing to treat Jaci, telling her, in sum and substance, that they believed that they were prevented from providing care due to Oklahoma law until Jaci was near death.

HHS complaint

Oklahoma Supreme Court rules medical emergency abortion law unconstitutional

Stratton and her husband eventually travelled to Wichita, Kansas, to receive care.

“Oklahoma’s laws nearly killed me. Even though I had an extremely dangerous pregnancy and was repeatedly bleeding, I was told to wait in a hospital parking lot until I was near death in order to get the life-saving care I needed,” said Statton. “I ended up having to travel almost 200 miles out of state for care—it was the longest and most terrifying ride of my life. No one ever thinks they need an abortion, but I am living proof that abortion is healthcare. It’s not safe to be pregnant in Oklahoma. With this complaint, I want to make sure that no one else has to suffer the way I did.”

Study: Most Oklahoma hospitals unable to explain emergency abortion care policies to patients

The complaint argues Children’s violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), that requires emergency rooms to provide “stabilizing” care – which CRR says can include abortions to patients facing medical emergencies.

“Pregnant people should not have to fear that they will be denied life-saving treatment from Oklahoma hospitals, nor should they be forced to wait until they are at death’s door before health care providers intervene,” the complaint reads. “EMTALA was designed to ensure that everyone—including people experiencing complications due to pregnancy—would be able to obtain timely medical care in emergencies.”

The HHS Office of the Inspector General can fine a EMTALA-violating hospital or physician for each violation. Severe violations can lead to termination of the hospital’s Medicare Provider Agreement.

KFOR reached out to OU Health for comment and they sent the following statement:

“Our physicians and staff remain steadfast and committed to providing the highest quality and compassionate care for women of all ages and stages of life. Our healthcare complies with state and federal laws and regulatory compliance standards. Our physicians and staff are aware of and follow state and federal laws.”


https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-complaint-filed-against-oklahoma-185909409.html

 

Democratic super PAC launches ad targeting Republicans over abortion ahead of key 2023 elections
by Caroline Vakil - 09/19/23 3:02 PM ET

Share
Tweet



The Democratic super PAC that released an eyebrow-raising ad showing a Republican in a couple’s bedroom ahead of a pivotal Ohio election is back with another ad targeting the GOP on abortion ahead of several critical races slated for later this year.

The Progress Action Fund on Tuesday released a new 30-second ad, part of a six-figure buy, called “Republicans Watching Your Daughter”, in which a father begs a doctor to help his daughter receive an abortion after she was raped but faces opposition from a Republican congressman.


“I can’t believe this. My daughter was raped, and you’re not going to do anything?” the father emotionally pleads to a doctor in the ad.

“I’m sorry. They’ll put us all in prison if we do the procedure,” the doctor says in the ad before a generic Republican congressman interjects, “He’s right. I’m your Republican congressman. We’ve banned abortion. No exceptions.”

“She’s just 12 years old. I’m not letting you destroy her life,” the father responds, before his congressman tells him, “I won the last election. So it’s my decision. I’m just going to watch your daughter and make sure she doesn’t do anything illegal.”


Progress Action Fund said the ad will air before several elections this fall, in which Ohio voters will weigh in on an abortion ballot measure that seeks to enshrine abortion protections in the state Constitution and Pennsylvanians will cast ballots in a state Supreme Court justice race.

The ad is slated to air on connected TVs, streaming services and online platforms, according to the Democratic group.

“Republicans keep losing elections because they refuse to recognize that the American people strongly believe in reproductive freedom,” Joe Jacobson, founder and executive director of Progress Action Fund, said in a statement.


“Voters have made it clear that they do not want Republican politicians invading their bedrooms, their doctors offices, or controlling their lives,” he added.

The ad underscores how Democrats are looking to make abortion an issue again heading into 2024, after it galvanized their base and even swung voters to curb what many expected could be a “red wave” during the November midterms.



https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ns-over-abortion-ahead-of-key-2023-elections/