{"id":4421,"date":"2022-02-02T08:21:49","date_gmt":"2022-02-02T14:21:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=4421"},"modified":"2022-02-02T08:21:49","modified_gmt":"2022-02-02T14:21:49","slug":"the-supreme-court-is-not-protecting-womens-rights-so-will-the-49th-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade-be-its-last","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=4421","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Is Not Protecting Women\u2019s Rights, so Will the 49th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Be Its Last?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Logan Sweeney<\/em><\/p>\n

Associate Editor<\/em><\/p>\n

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2022<\/em><\/p>\n

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/a> that states could not create onerous requirements that interfered with a patient\u2019s right to an abortion up to the point of viability of the fetus, which was around 24 weeks. Roe <\/em>and Planned Parenthood v. Casey<\/em><\/a> established and protected patients\u2019 rights to privacy and healthcare autonomy in reproductive health. However, as I previously explained in Abort Texas\u2019 New Abortion Law<\/a>, Texas\u2019 new law erodes that decision. On January 20, 2022, the Supreme Court was presented with the opportunity to address this issue. The Court denied<\/a> Texas abortion clinics\u2019 request to immediately return to litigation over the Court\u2019s acceptance of Texas\u2019 six-week abortion law. However, the threat to reproductive health is not isolated to Texas; other states have enacted similar laws.<\/p>\n

In 2018, Mississippi passed its new abortion law, the Gestational Age Act<\/a>, which prohibits all abortions, with few exceptions, after fifteen weeks\u2019 gestational age. In this litigation, Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion facility in Mississippi, filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the ban\u2019s constitutionality. Subsequently, on December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em><\/a>. The suit remains pending, but the Supreme Court\u2019s acceptance of this case indicates that the 6-3 conservative majority court is willing to revisit the legality of abortions.<\/p>\n

The Guttmacher Institutes<\/a> predicts that if Roe <\/em>were overturned or even fundamentally weakened,\u00a0 twenty-one states are certain to attempt to ban abortion, and five states are likely to ban abortion. Thus, the decision from a conservative majority court who has already demonstrated an anti-abortion sentiment, will likely result in over half of the nation banning abortion. Congress cannot continue to idly sit by, ignore, and be complacent to the disruption of the reproductive health network. Congress must codify the principles of Roe <\/em>and Planned Parenthood <\/em>to protect an individual\u2019s right to health care.<\/p>\n

The effects already being felt<\/strong><\/p>\n

Southern states without abortion bans are currently experiencing an extreme influx in the number of patients they are serving as a result of the ban in Texas. Specifically, in Tennessee, the number of patients coming in from Texas has doubled<\/a> since the law took effect. In Mississippi, prior to its own ban, the Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization stated that one-fourth of the largely low-income patients the clinic serves travel from Texas. In Oklahoma, at least two-thirds of its patients<\/a> travel from Texas. Abortion bans are creating a domino effect. If Roe <\/em>and Planned Parenthood<\/em> are overturned, the strain being felt by states which neighbor abortion-restricted states will be magnified and experienced on a national scale.<\/p>\n

As a result of Texas patients traveling to states without bans, abortion clinics are experiencing increased waiting periods average several weeks. Additionally it is causing added stress on patients experiencing unwanted pregnancies as they are now forced to decide quickly, travel great distances, and pay higher rates<\/a> for the same procedures.<\/p>\n

Gatekeeping, financial burdens, and other barriers<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, even ignoring the current restrictions and bans, abortion access is still inaccessible for many in the United States under our current system. Insurance coverage bans such as the Hyde Amendment<\/a>, perpetuate inequality and create barriers by blocking access to legal abortions. The effect is primarily felt by low-income women and women of color on Medicaid. In Texas specifically, AJPH Research<\/a> found that nearly seventy-five percent of abortion-seeking patients in Texas are people of color, \u00a0and forty-four percent have household incomes that are below two hundred percent of the federal poverty guidelines. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Abortion coverage bans compound the barriers to care many people already face due to systemic discrimination and economic insecurity. Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) are among those most harmed by abortion restrictions while also bearing the brunt of the pandemic and systemic racism. Center for Reproductive Rights.<\/p>\n

In addition to legislative barriers, patients experience travel-related barriers, system navigation issues, financial issues, and limited clinic options<\/a>. These barriers may include, inclement weather, inability to access safe and reliable transportation, lack of insurance coverage, inability to raise money for the procedure and related costs such as travel and lodging. It is important to note that there are already five states that only have a single abortion clinic. These barriers leave patients with limited, if any, options. As a result, patients may be forced to obtain abortions at later gestations due to issues in scheduling, suffer mental health crises, and consider ending the pregnancy on their own, whether through medication or blunt force. Patients are currently suffering, and the government\u2019s restrictions and lack of action are exacerbating that suffering.<\/p>\n

Congress needs to act<\/strong><\/p>\n

As stated in my previous blog post, the Women\u2019s Health Protection Act (\u201cAct\u201d) sits in both the House and Senate. In the House, the Bill was introduced with 117 cosponsors<\/a>, and in the Senate, the Bill was introduced with 48 cosponsors<\/a>. On June 8, 2021<\/a>, the Bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and it has remained there. Congress needs to act quickly, and the Women\u2019s Health Protection Act needs to be passed to become a statutory right<\/a> for health care providers to provide abortion care and for patients to receive that care.<\/p>\n

However, in addition to the Act, Congress must pass the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (Each Woman) Act to establish government-sponsored health insurance plans, including Medicaid, that cover abortion-related costs. On March 13, 2019<\/a>, this Bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health, where it remains. Congress needs to act to ensure that patients\u2019 access to reproductive health care is protected.<\/p>\n

Congress cannot ignore the attack on the reproductive health network and the suffering its causing. Congress must act quickly and codify the principles of Roe <\/em>and Planned Parenthood <\/em>to protect an individual\u2019s right to health care.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that states could not create onerous requirements that interfered with a patient\u2019s right to an abortion up to the point of viability of the fetus, which was around 24 weeks. Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey established and protected patients\u2019 rights to privacy and healthcare autonomy in reproductive health. However, as I previously explained in Abort Texas\u2019 New Abortion Law, Texas\u2019 new law erodes that decision. On January 20, 2022, the Supreme Court was presented with the opportunity to address this issue. The Court denied Texas abortion clinics\u2019 request to immediately return to litigation over the Court\u2019s acceptance of Texas\u2019 six-week abortion law. However, the threat to reproductive health is not isolated to Texas; other states have enacted similar laws.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1010,1205,1690],"class_list":["post-4421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-health-insurance","tag-journal-of-regulatory-compliance","tag-regulation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4421","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/55"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4421\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}