Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official)

[Brennan77]

Forgive me for posting this given that I'm not a regular participant.

Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

www.politico.com

Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.

www.politico.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

(her daughter)

I'm so happy she's still a thorn in Kellyanne's side.

 

[Optimus Prime]

……..When Senate Bill 8 took effect, Dr Rubino felt like she was on a “sinking ship”. The abortion provider and family medicine specialist was forced to turn away dozens of patients at Austin Women’s Health Center – including one who was experiencing kidney fai lure.

At the same time, patients below the six-week mark were rushing to choose abortion care before it was too late, leaving thoughtful decision-making behind.

“I had to tell people there’s nothing I can legally do for you, unless you’re on death’s doorstep,” said Rubino. “The law forced me to be a bad doctor.”

“It was heartbreaking and soul-crushing,” she continued. “I was watching a healthcare disaster play out in real time, knowing that this law not only affects our state but is causing a ripple effect in every other state. With SB 8 – and even years before the law – we saw the writing on the wall with Roe and tried to warn everyone, but I’m not sure who was listening.”

Rubino also recalled a conversation she had six months prior to SB 8 with colleagues across the state who appeared united, vowing to continue providing care despite the law’s consequences. People are going to die, she told them, we should take the “personal hit”. However, that wave of defiance never materialized. Rubino lacked critical mass.

She soon fell into an “extreme” depression; it was difficult to get out of bed each day and she eventually sought mental health therapy and antidepressants. Her brain felt “broken”, she said. After Dobbs, she stopped performing abortion for nearly a year, exacerbating her gloom.

“Having to deny patients the healthcare you are trained – and able – to give them is something you never get over. It’s not only medically unethical, it’s morally wrong,” said Rubino. “It was traumatizing, and it still haunts me.”

SB 8, she said, was the tipping point for abortion providers in Texas like her who have been forced to navigate onerous laws over the years that compromise the care they give, including a mandatory sonogram and 24-hour waiting period that incorporates relaying erroneous medical information, bans on insurance coverage for care, restrictions on minors’ access to abortion, and more.

In May, under the advice of attorneys and those closest to her, Rubino and her family left Texas with no plans to return. She worked at a clinic in Bristol, Virginia, where she largely served patients in banned southern states, before moving to DC in late August to help expand abortion services at a reproductive health clinic there.

Rubino still struggles with the decision to flee Texas, while also acknowledging the legal inability to continue her calling.

“There is a sense of guilt, of letting down the community I serve. Sometimes I feel like I gave up on these people,” she said.

She also worries that a national abortion ban could once again pull her away from the community she now treats. She considers one day working in the UK or New Zealand.

Rubino feels deeply anxious about the fate of the patients she has left behind and mentioned a recurring patient, a victim of domestic violence, whose partner blocked her access to birth control.

“She’s going to call and I’m not going to be there,” said Rubino. “She’s not in a safe situation and we know staying pregnant can lead to more abuse, and even death by an abusive partner. The safest thing for her would be to get an abortion but now she’s not going to have that choice.”…….

Abortion providers on two years of Texas ban: ‘We’re living in a devastating reality’

Senate Bill 8 wiped out almost all abortion care in the second-most populous state in the US, and served as a harbinger of what was to come over the rest of the country

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

They want to punish and control women. That’s all this is about. Been that way for decades.

 

[Optimus Prime]

LLANO, Tex. — No one could remember the last time so many people packed into City Hall.


As the meeting began on a late August evening, residents spilled out into the hallway, the brim of one cowboy hat kissing the next, each person jostling for a look at the five city council members who would decide whether to make Llano the third city in Texas to outlaw what some antiabortion activists call “abortion trafficking.”


For well over an hour, the people of Llano — a town of about 3,400 deep in Texas Hill Country — approached the podium to speak out against abortion.

While the procedure was now illegal across Texas, people were still driving women on Llano roads to reach abortion clinics in other states, the residents had been told. They said their city had a responsibility to “fight the murders.”

The cheers after each speech grew louder as the crowd readied for the vote. Then one woman on the council spoke up.
“I feel like there’s a lot more to discuss about this,” said Laura Almond, a staunch conservative who owns a consignment shop in the middle of town. “I have a ton of questions.”

More than a year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, many conservatives have grown frustrated by the number of people able to circumvent antiabortion laws — with some advocates grasping for even stricter measures they hope will fully eradicate abortion nationwide.


That frustration is driving a new strategy in heavily conservative cities and counties across Texas.

Designed by the architects of the state’s “heartbeat” ban that took effect months before Roe fell, ordinances like the one proposed in Llano — where some 80 percent of voters in the county backed President Donald Trump in 2020 — make it illegal to transport anyone to get an abortion on roads within the city or county limits.

The laws allow any private citizen to sue a person or organization they suspect of violating the ordinance.

Antiabortion advocates behind the measure are targeting regions along interstates and in areas with airports, with the goal of blocking off the main arteries out of Texas and keeping pregnant women hemmed within the confines of their antiabortion state.

These provisions have already passed in two counties and two cities, creating legal risk for those traveling on major highways including Interstate 20 and Route 84, which head toward New Mexico, where abortion remains legal and new clinics have opened to accommodate Texas women. Several more jurisdictions are expected to vote on the measure in the coming weeks.


“This really is building a wall to stop abortion trafficking,” said Mark Lee Dickson, the antiabortion activist behind the effort…….

Since Roe fell, triggering a new ban that outlawed almost all abortions in Texas, Dickson and Mitchell have changed their strategy.

Along with passing ordinances in conservative border towns in Democrat-led states, where abortion providers may look to open new clinics, the team has zeroed in on those helping women leave Texas for abortions — a practice they call “abortion trafficking.”

By Dickson’s definition, “abortion trafficking” is the act of helping any pregnant woman cross state lines to end her pregnancy, lending her a ride, funding, or another form of support.

While the term “trafficking” typically refers to people who are forced, tricked or coerced, Dickson’s definition applies to all people seeking abortions — because, he argues, “the unborn child is always taken against their will.”…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/01/texas-abortion-highways/

 

[MT15]

LLANO, Tex. — No one could remember the last time so many people packed into City Hall.


As the meeting began on a late August evening, residents spilled out into the hallway, the brim of one cowboy hat kissing the next, each person jostling for a look at the five city council members who would decide whether to make Llano the third city in Texas to outlaw what some antiabortion activists call “abortion trafficking.”


For well over an hour, the people of Llano — a town of about 3,400 deep in Texas Hill Country — approached the podium to speak out against abortion.

While the procedure was now illegal across Texas, people were still driving women on Llano roads to reach abortion clinics in other states, the residents had been told. They said their city had a responsibility to “fight the murders.”

The cheers after each speech grew louder as the crowd readied for the vote. Then one woman on the council spoke up.
“I feel like there’s a lot more to discuss about this,” said Laura Almond, a staunch conservative who owns a consignment shop in the middle of town. “I have a ton of questions.”

More than a year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, many conservatives have grown frustrated by the number of people able to circumvent antiabortion laws — with some advocates grasping for even stricter measures they hope will fully eradicate abortion nationwide.


That frustration is driving a new strategy in heavily conservative cities and counties across Texas.

Designed by the architects of the state’s “heartbeat” ban that took effect months before Roe fell, ordinances like the one proposed in Llano — where some 80 percent of voters in the county backed President Donald Trump in 2020 — make it illegal to transport anyone to get an abortion on roads within the city or county limits.

The laws allow any private citizen to sue a person or organization they suspect of violating the ordinance.

Antiabortion advocates behind the measure are targeting regions along interstates and in areas with airports, with the goal of blocking off the main arteries out of Texas and keeping pregnant women hemmed within the confines of their antiabortion state.

These provisions have already passed in two counties and two cities, creating legal risk for those traveling on major highways including Interstate 20 and Route 84, which head toward New Mexico, where abortion remains legal and new clinics have opened to accommodate Texas women. Several more jurisdictions are expected to vote on the measure in the coming weeks.


“This really is building a wall to stop abortion trafficking,” said Mark Lee Dickson, the antiabortion activist behind the effort…….

Since Roe fell, triggering a new ban that outlawed almost all abortions in Texas, Dickson and Mitchell have changed their strategy.

Along with passing ordinances in conservative border towns in Democrat-led states, where abortion providers may look to open new clinics, the team has zeroed in on those helping women leave Texas for abortions — a practice they call “abortion trafficking.”

By Dickson’s definition, “abortion trafficking” is the act of helping any pregnant woman cross state lines to end her pregnancy, lending her a ride, funding, or another form of support.

While the term “trafficking” typically refers to people who are forced, tricked or coerced, Dickson’s definition applies to all people seeking abortions — because, he argues, “the unborn child is always taken against their will.”…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/01/texas-abortion-highways/

so this is just another step - a process of controlling pregnant women, and women in general. Next there will be “homes” to put pregnant women in, just to protect the fetus. They give the fetus dominion, and since the fetus is incapable of reason or even consciousness, they will just take over. Authoritarian bastages. This is not a Christian stance - it’s authoritarian and punished women.

 

[LA - L.A.]

so this is just another step - a process of controlling pregnant women, and women in general. Next there will be “homes” to put pregnant women in, just to protect the fetus. They give the fetus dominion, and since the fetus is incapable of reason or even consciousness, they will just take over. Authoritarian bastages. This is not a Christian stance - it’s authoritarian and punished women.

It's not just about punishing females. It's also about slowing moving toward forcing females to be involuntary breeders, especially white females.

Take away females' rights to abortion, even in cases of rape, including incestuous rape. Make it difficult for females to get access to contraception. Resurrect the notion that wives can't be raped by their husbands and spread propaganda supporting it. Resurrect the notion that females have the sole purpose and duty of breeding and raising children, especially white females, and spread propaganda supporting it. Get several charismatic females, especially white females, to start groups promoting the idea to other females, especially white females, that every female is at their best when they are having children.

It's pretty obvious where the current Republican party leadership and a significant percentage of the voters who still vote Republican are trying to steer us. For decades and beneath the facade, the push against abortions has been about trying to hold on to white population dominance in order to maintain white male dominance.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

They want to punish and control women. That’s all this is about. Been that way for decades.

Alabama... the same state that just told SCOTUS to fork off after they ordered districting lines to include a 2nd black district. Are we heading towards another nullification crisis?

 

[Optimus Prime]

An effort to guarantee access to abortion rights in Ohio, a November ballot measure, is already fueling misleading claims about how it could influence abortion care, gender-related health care and parental consent in the state.

The proposed constitutional amendment would give Ohioans the right to make their own reproductive decisions.

Backers say that since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, the proposal would restore a commonsense abortion protection that most Ohio voters can support.

But opponents argue would do far more than that. Ads portray the amendment as a gateway to children getting abortions and gender-related surgeries without their parents’ consent. Opponents also have falsely suggested the amendment would open doors to protecting abusers and legalizing infanticide.

The Associated Press spoke to numerous medical and legal experts, who explained what the amendment, known as Issue 1, would mean for Ohioans if it were to pass in November.

If the amendment passes, Ohio can still restrict abortion beyond the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb. With modern medicine, that point, referred to as the point of viability, is typically about 23 weeks or 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

Yet opponents of the measure argue that the proposal would still allow for abortions “up to birth” because it lets doctors decide when a fetus is viable or not, and because it has an exemption allowing later abortions to protect the life or the health of the mother.

“They could have made it clear. They could have added weeks in there for viability,” said Mehek Cooke, a lawyer working with the opposition campaign, Protect Women Ohio.

Independent medical and legal experts say this argument discounts that doctors have a duty to follow medical science.

The original language from the amendment’s backers defined fetal viability as the fetus having “a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures.”

“Obviously, it would be unprofessional for a doctor to say that a 9-month fetus had no possibility of survival outside the uterus unless there was some life-threatening birth defect,” said Dan Kobil, a constitutional law professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. “The rationale offered that physicians have willy-nilly ability to define viability as anything they want is inaccurate.”

Abortions later in pregnancy are exceedingly rare. In 2020, less than 1% of abortions in the United States were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.……..

Ohio votes on abortion rights this fall. Misinformation about the proposal is already spreading

A ballot measure in Ohio that would guarantee access to abortion rights is fueling misleading claims about how the proposal could influence abortion care, gender-related health care and parental consent in the state

www.independent.co.uk

 

[MT15]

An effort to guarantee access to abortion rights in Ohio, a November ballot measure, is already fueling misleading claims about how it could influence abortion care, gender-related health care and parental consent in the state.

The proposed constitutional amendment would give Ohioans the right to make their own reproductive decisions.

Backers say that since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, the proposal would restore a commonsense abortion protection that most Ohio voters can support.

But opponents argue would do far more than that. Ads portray the amendment as a gateway to children getting abortions and gender-related surgeries without their parents’ consent. Opponents also have falsely suggested the amendment would open doors to protecting abusers and legalizing infanticide.

The Associated Press spoke to numerous medical and legal experts, who explained what the amendment, known as Issue 1, would mean for Ohioans if it were to pass in November.

If the amendment passes, Ohio can still restrict abortion beyond the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb. With modern medicine, that point, referred to as the point of viability, is typically about 23 weeks or 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

Yet opponents of the measure argue that the proposal would still allow for abortions “up to birth” because it lets doctors decide when a fetus is viable or not, and because it has an exemption allowing later abortions to protect the life or the health of the mother.

“They could have made it clear. They could have added weeks in there for viability,” said Mehek Cooke, a lawyer working with the opposition campaign, Protect Women Ohio.

Independent medical and legal experts say this argument discounts that doctors have a duty to follow medical science.

The original language from the amendment’s backers defined fetal viability as the fetus having “a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures.”

“Obviously, it would be unprofessional for a doctor to say that a 9-month fetus had no possibility of survival outside the uterus unless there was some life-threatening birth defect,” said Dan Kobil, a constitutional law professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. “The rationale offered that physicians have willy-nilly ability to define viability as anything they want is inaccurate.”

Abortions later in pregnancy are exceedingly rare. In 2020, less than 1% of abortions in the United States were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.……..

Ohio votes on abortion rights this fall. Misinformation about the proposal is already spreading

A ballot measure in Ohio that would guarantee access to abortion rights is fueling misleading claims about how the proposal could influence abortion care, gender-related health care and parental consent in the state

www.independent.co.uk

Abortion opponents lie with impunity and hide behind their Bibles. They’re disgusting. They would gladly sacrifice women for their religious beliefs.

 

[zztop]

oh look

Virginia’s ‘Moderate’ GOP Governor Is Quietly Funding Anti-Choice Extremists

The Virginia governor has presented himself as a moderate Republican, but many candidates he’s funding are pushing policies based on the belief that life begins at conception.

www.huffpost.com

Virginia Gov. Youngkin eyes a 15-week abortion ban as a 'consensus' voters would back

The Republican wants to make abortion legislation a priority in the last Southern state without significant restrictions. His team says focus groups show a 15-week ban is popular.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Remember all that happy talk about our federal system and letting states decide for themselves whether to allow abortion in the wake of the Dobbs ruling last year?

Some states would prohibit abortion; some would allow it; and, as Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh assured us, women in abortion-banning states would be free to travel elsewhere to obtain the procedure.


Well, not so fast — at least according to Alabama. The state prohibits almost all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Now comes Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall to say that’s doesn’t go far enough.

According to Marshall, helping women travel to other states to obtain abortions could amount to a “criminal conspiracy” under state law, one that he’s prepared to prosecute.
“

An elective abortion performed in Alabama would be a criminal offense; thus, a conspiracy formed in the State to have that same act performed outside the State is illegal,” Marshall wrote in a court filing last week.

Whether an abortion would be legal in the state where it was performed didn’t matter, Marshall asserted; the state’s criminal conspiracy law covers acts that would be illegal under Alabama law.

Therefore, he said, “the legality of abortion in other states is irrelevant” and “Alabama can criminalize Alabama-based conspiracies to commit abortions elsewhere.”


This is the reality of post-Roe America, where women in red states have only the reproductive rights that the most extreme state officials are willing to grant…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/06/post-roe-america-alabama-murder/

 

[MT15]

So following that logic, if you and a friend discussed traveling to Las Vegas to bet at a casino, you have entered into a criminal conspiracy, no? These people are beneath contempt.

 

[faceman]

Oh I agree, but it's a long shot at best. Probably energy best spent in pushing for reforms and going from there.

Yep, the problem is all states are equally represented in the Senate. A small red state like Ms. would
equalize the vote of any big blue state. I'm fine with that. I believe our constitution is a beautiful
document.

 

[DaveXA]

Yep, the problem is all states are equally represented in the Senate. A small red state like Ms. would
equalize the vote of any big blue state. I'm fine with that. I believe our constitution is a beautiful
document.

Yep, and the small vs big gets balanced out somewhat in the House, but then there's gerrymandering there. As imperfect as our system of government is, it's the one we have to work with.

 

[faceman]

Yep, and the small vs big gets balanced out somewhat in the House, but then there's gerrymandering there. As imperfect as our system of government is, it's the one we have to work with.

Yeah that happens in every state. Ms. only has one democratic rep,and we should have two imo. The black vote
has been gerrymandered to include most of their vote in one district.

 

[Optimus Prime]

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Planned Parenthood announced Thursday that it will resume offering abortions in Wisconsin next week after a judge ruled that an 1849 law that seemingly banned the procedure actually didn’t apply to abortions.

The resumption of abortions Monday at clinics in Milwaukee and Madison comes as the lawsuit challenging the state law continues in county court. It is expected to eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which flipped to liberal control on Aug. 1.

Abortion clinics across the state stopped offering abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

Democrats in Wisconsin, including Gov. Tony Evers, used abortion access as a central focus of their reelection victories in 2022. State Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose win in April gave liberals the majority for the first time in 15 years, ran as a supporter of abortion rights.


Evers hailed the decision.……

Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions next week in Wisconsin, citing court ruling

Planned Parenthood says that it will resume offering abortions in Wisconsin next week after a judge ruled that an 1849 law that seemingly banned the procedure actually didn’t apply to abortions.

apnews.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Rs will not stop lying about late term abortions. It’s infuriating.

Most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.

Late-Term Abortion and Medical Necessity: A Failure of Science

Roe V. Wade (1973) placed the concept of medical necessity at the center of the public discourse on abortion. Nearly a half century later, 2 laws dealing with late-term abortion, 1 passed in New York and 1 set aside in Virginia, are an indication that ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More:

Essentially, Roe allowed abortion without any regulation in the first trimester of pregnancy, but made abortions in the second and third trimesters contingent upon demonstrated threats to the pregnant mother’s health. Along with rape and incest, therefore, medical necessity became the pathway to unrestricted abortion access. It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other.1,2

However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.”5

...The abortion science infrastructure, defined by the availability of valid data and research funding, is woefully inadequate. The abortion reporting system in the United States is demonstrably limited. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Abortion Surveillance System is voluntary. Three states (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) do not report at all, and they account for 20% of the total US abortions. There is no uniformity in the data provided by reporting states so that major variables of interest such as race are available for only subsets of states and for intermittent time periods. Data are provided in aggregate tables and no individual event-level information is available, seriously constraining its analytical power. As a result, CDC abortion reporting has very limited value as a research resource. The Guttmacher Institute provider and patient surveys are likely a more complete source of abortion incidence data because they survey all states. However, Guttmacher does not do a survey every year, nor is its data openly available to all investigators. These inadequacies in abortion reporting also erode the quality of science in related areas such as maternal mortality.8 Research funding for abortion studies is also inadequate. According to the National Institutes of Health Research Condition and Disease Categorization System, developed to provide transparency in the reporting of funded research, abortion is essentially nonexistent as a subject for research funding. The system annually reports 282 different, presumably researchable conditions and categories including climate change, adolescent sexual activity, eczema, and food allergies. However, there is no category for abortion. A query of the system using abortion as the search term returns the following response: “No estimate of funding information is found.” So, the available data are compromised and minimal. Available funding is sparse. In the nation which has revolutionized the application of data and analytics, no one can say with certainty how many induced abortions are performed, what are the characteristics of the affected population of women, nor the characteristics, volumes, and outcomes of the providers who have performed them. There is no vibrant transparent exchange of data, findings, and policy interpretations occurring in the US peer-reviewed professional and scientific journals.

I wonder why the data on abortions is inadequate? I'm guessing that's on purpose.

 

[coldseat]

Most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.

Late-Term Abortion and Medical Necessity: A Failure of Science

Roe V. Wade (1973) placed the concept of medical necessity at the center of the public discourse on abortion. Nearly a half century later, 2 laws dealing with late-term abortion, 1 passed in New York and 1 set aside in Virginia, are an indication that ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More:

Essentially, Roe allowed abortion without any regulation in the first trimester of pregnancy, but made abortions in the second and third trimesters contingent upon demonstrated threats to the pregnant mother’s health. Along with rape and incest, therefore, medical necessity became the pathway to unrestricted abortion access. It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other.1,2

However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.”5

...The abortion science infrastructure, defined by the availability of valid data and research funding, is woefully inadequate. The abortion reporting system in the United States is demonstrably limited. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Abortion Surveillance System is voluntary. Three states (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) do not report at all, and they account for 20% of the total US abortions. There is no uniformity in the data provided by reporting states so that major variables of interest such as race are available for only subsets of states and for intermittent time periods. Data are provided in aggregate tables and no individual event-level information is available, seriously constraining its analytical power. As a result, CDC abortion reporting has very limited value as a research resource. The Guttmacher Institute provider and patient surveys are likely a more complete source of abortion incidence data because they survey all states. However, Guttmacher does not do a survey every year, nor is its data openly available to all investigators. These inadequacies in abortion reporting also erode the quality of science in related areas such as maternal mortality.8 Research funding for abortion studies is also inadequate. According to the National Institutes of Health Research Condition and Disease Categorization System, developed to provide transparency in the reporting of funded research, abortion is essentially nonexistent as a subject for research funding. The system annually reports 282 different, presumably researchable conditions and categories including climate change, adolescent sexual activity, eczema, and food allergies. However, there is no category for abortion. A query of the system using abortion as the search term returns the following response: “No estimate of funding information is found.” So, the available data are compromised and minimal. Available funding is sparse. In the nation which has revolutionized the application of data and analytics, no one can say with certainty how many induced abortions are performed, what are the characteristics of the affected population of women, nor the characteristics, volumes, and outcomes of the providers who have performed them. There is no vibrant transparent exchange of data, findings, and policy interpretations occurring in the US peer-reviewed professional and scientific journals.

I wonder why the data on abortions is inadequate? I'm guessing that's on purpose.

Things that are easily dismissed by rational people, anti-abortionist masquerading as scientist.

===========
“As part of the investigation, we are looking into Dr. Adkins’ concerns as well as any concerns related to conflict of interest,” Sage spokesperson Camille Gamboa told States Newsroom in an email. The lead author of the paper, James Studnicki, who works for the anti-abortion think tank Charlotte Lozier Institute, is also on the editorial board of “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.” Gamboa said that Studnicki, in accordance with his journal’s ethics guidelines, was “not involved in the decision-making process for this article.”

Adkins dissected this paper the way he used to as a onetime peer reviewer. He told States Newsroom that the authors exaggerated their findings and visually misrepresented them in ways that are “grossly misleading.” And that’s led to legal consequences. Except, he said, their study doesn’t actually show what Kacsmaryk said it does: that medication abortion leads to significantly high rates of complications.
=============

Study cited by Texas judge in abortion-pill case under investigation - Wisconsin Examiner

Questions arise about the accuracy of a 2021 study authored by anti-abortion doctors that helped inform a court ban on mifepristone

wisconsinexaminer.com