Personhood and "heartbeat" legislation are not the real threats to abortion rights.

[cali]

They will all be challenged and enjoined and then ruled unconstitutional. They won't get to the SC. They will tie up financial resource and they will make all the other legislation they're passing (at least that's the hope) look reasonable. What is and will continue to remove access for women is legislation which regulates access to death. Such legislation is being passed by state after state.

Many of the "heartbeat", near total bans on abortion, bills contain legislation such as the following- in fact, to the best of my knowledge, they all do:

1.) Requiring Doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Sound reasonable? A mild step? It is most assuredly not. Mississippi stands as an example of why these laws are so onerous. There is ONE clinic in Mississippi that performs abortions of any kind. It's in Jackson. In 2012, in an attempt to shut it down and become the first "abortion free" state, lawmakers passed legislation requiring doctors at the clinic to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Docs who practice at the clinic, mostly from out of state have tried repeatedly to get admitting privileges. No local hospital will consider it.

The Jackson clinic is still operating. In January it received a notice from the state that it will be shut down under the current law.
The clinic has been granted time to try and comply with the law by U.S. District Judge Jordan.

In addition, new Mississippi laws make other ridiculous and onerous demands: that the clinic be located in an "attractive setting" with enough parking spaces, for instance. More about that shit further down in the op.

Mississippi is hardly the only state going this route. In the race to be the first state to abrogate a woman's constitutional laws, other states are doing the exact same thing. Just yesterday, Alabama passed a clone of the Mississippi legislation.

2.) States are passing regulations that state that clinics that perform abortions must meet the same physical plant requirements that hospitals do. This is massively expensive. Out of reach expensive. Often these requirements are contained in the same legislation as that which demands that docs have local admitting privileges.

3) Making it difficult to impossible for clinics to administer RU-487 by legislating that clinics that only do chemical abortions have surgical facilities. Such a bill was approved yesterday in the Indiana House. 25% of abortions performed before 9 weeks are chemical procedures. This legislation is targeted at shutting down a clinic in Lafayette.

Are these bills being challenged? It appears as if some are and some aren't. What are the odds of a successful challenge? That's far more murky. Odds are that this is the legislation that will make it to Supreme Court, not the personhood, 6 week, 12 week legislation.

This is how abortion rights in large swaths of the country are being killed under the radar, while the media focuses on the more dramatic, less technical legislation.

[cali]

1. This approach to kill abortion access is known as TRAP

Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers.

What is a TRAP bill?

TRAP stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. TRAP bills single out abortion providers for medically unnecessary, politically motivated state regulations. They can be divided into three general categories:

a measure that singles out abortion providers for medically unnecessary regulations, standards, personnel qualifications, building and/or structural requirements;
a politically motivated provision that needlessly addresses the licensing of abortion clinics and/or charges an exorbitant fee to register a clinic in the state; or
a measure that unnecessarily regulates where abortions may be provided or designates abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical centers, outpatient care centers, or hospitals without medical justification.


http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/trap_laws.html

[ananda]

2. Where's the fight from women?

If women won't organize and fight, well..

[cali]

3. It's there. It's just not enough. And one thing that I find particularly discouraging is

that women are the lead on much of this legislation; at least they're the face of it.

The TRAP legislation is particularly hard to fight against effectively;

“Personhood,” heartbeat bans, forcing women to give birth to babies diagnosed with genetic anomalies that make them unlikely to survive long after birth, if they make it that long: These bills have triggered much outrage among pro-choice advocates and have resulted in flashy headlines, successful fundraising pleas, and trips to court.

What many people don’t realize, however, is that not one of those bills is likely to end abortion in North Dakota. But SB 2305, the state’s targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) bill, will—and few people are paying attention to it.

“We definitely see the TRAP bill as the one that will end abortion in the state,” Tammi Kromenaker, the director of Red River Women’s Clinic (RRWC), told RH Reality Check. RRWC is the only abortion clinic in North Dakota. “The other bills aren’t really a threat right now, but this one could close us.”

- See more at: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/26/despite-abortion-bans-trap-law-is-the-real-threat-to-abortion-access-in-north-dakota/#sthash.KzMbegio.dpuf

[redqueen]

4. Rec'd this earlier... time for a kick. nt

[cali]

5. Thank you, redqueen.

I post lots of ops about abortion because I think it's a vital right. In fact, without it freedom to control our own bodies, I don't think women have freedom. My threads on abortion generally sink swiftly, but I'm not going to stop.

[redqueen]

6. I agree... and thanks for posting them.

[hamsterjill]

7. I worry that abortion rights are not valued enough.

I'm a child of the sixties and remember the fight to legalize abortion. I'm adamantly opposed to any limitations put on the right for a woman to terminate a pregnancy because I believe that is a personal choice for that woman, her health care provider, and anyone else whom she chooses to involve in her decision making.

I worry that what we fought for is no longer valued as it once was. Mostly because for many of the voters of today, abortion was a protected right before they were born. I wonder if, once the right to terminate a pregnancy is limited, will there ever be an outcry from young women today that rivals what I saw in the sixties, etc.? Or will that right - and you are absolutely correct in that the right to terminate a pregnancy is paramount to women having real freedom - but will that right even be missed? I believe it will be, but I am confounded at the lack of interest in the subject.

It is my main reason for being a Democrat. I will not vote for any candidate that does not support choice. I am THAT adamant. And I will never, ever change my viewpoint.

[cali]

8. they aren't valued enough

And what we fought for no longer exists in many states. The right to abortion has been very effectively limited far beyond the limitations in Roe.

[HappyMe]

11. I agree.

The other day on another thread, this came up.

Another poster and I were crabbing about the fact that the young women seem completely apathetic about this issue. A couple of the under 25s I know didn't even bother to vote in the Presidential election! I put in plenty of time marching, petitioning, flyers....
I stupidly assumed the younger generation would take this up.

They had better start waking up, voting, and giving a crap about things other than FB and tweets.

[hamsterjill]

13. I fear you are correct!

I, too, had assumed the younger generation would be as passionate about women's rights as I am. And some of them are - both males and females. But not as many are passionate about this and other issues as *I* would like.

I think that makes me sound old, doesn't it???? Sounds like that is something coming from my own parents!!! LOL

But in all seriousness, I see a lot of young people, even posting on DU, who seem to parrot information without really understanding or dissecting it for themselves. I was absolutely pummeled the other day over a post about being opposed to someone who I know personally who is getting Medicaid and really shouldn't be.

While my point was that social services absolutely should be available for those who really need it, and that it should be a dishonorable thing for someone to seek those services when they are able bodied and have the ability to work. In other words, someone taking from the system who shouldn't be taking from the system puts others who really need the aid further down the list and unable to get what they need.

The majority of responses that I received completely overlooked that aspect of the post - - - and chose to berate me for meddling in someone else's business. Many responses questioned my original post implying that I didn't know what I was talking about. Since this is a family situation that I have actual knowledge of, I wonder how the responders figured they knew more about the situation than I did.

I wondered how those who felt that way feel about ANY postings? Do they attack the accuracy of every post and accuse the poster of not knowing that of which they write? Because if that's the case, there's going to be a heckuva lot of arguing on DU, and not very much thoughtful interchange.

[cry baby]

9. So true! Been telling whoever will listen this exact info. nt

[cali]

10. So glad to hear that!

[cry baby]

12. My step daughter worked for PP in TN.

PP had to basically apply to lease a building under an assumed name. Building owners in this particular city wouldn't lease to PP.

It's a matter of time before they use altered zoning rules or some other shameful way to make PP close.