AG James Submits Congressional Testimony in Support of Women’s Health Protection Act
New York Attorney General Letitia James continued her leadership in the fight to safeguard the health care and reproductive rights of patients across New York and the rest of the nation. Leading a coalition of 16 attorneys general from across the nation, Attorney General James submitted testimony into the congressional record, urging passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), which would protect a woman's constitutional right to access an abortion by prohibiting unnecessary restrictions — passed at the state level — that undermine the availability and safety of health care services.
“As states continue to pass constricting laws that seek to unconstitutionally restrict women’s reproductive rights, we are urging Congress to take federal action and codify every woman’s right to access an abortion into law,” said Attorney General James. “Roe v. Wade may have been fought nearly 50 years ago, but the war on women’s reproductive freedoms continues today. It’s time for our federal leaders to finally stand up for women’s health nationwide and take legislative action to prevent these unconstitutional infringements. This is about protecting women’s health, protecting their bodies, and protecting their choices.”
“The United States has never been closer to losing the fundamental right to access abortion than right now,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO, Center for Reproductive Rights. “State legislatures have passed so many restrictions that abortion is already out of reach for many people. The WHPA is the answer to these politically motivated, unconstitutional restrictions. We are so grateful to New York Attorney General Letitia James and to the many other state attorneys general who have joined her in calling for the passage of this crucial legislation. The time for Congress to act is now.”
Attorney General James leads the coalition in arguing that while legislators in many states may claim that the laws they are enacting are being passed to promote women’s health, the reality is that these laws are simply designed to restrict access to abortion services and, most often, lead to worse health outcomes for women. These include laws requiring physicians to have admitting privileges at hospitals and setting arbitrary requirements at women’s health clinics for the size of procedure rooms and corridors. The proliferation of these restrictions has negatively impacted women’s health — disproportionately affecting low-income communities and communities of color, while simultaneously creating a lack of national consistency that strains states’ health care systems. Most importantly, any law that imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy is unconstitutional.
The Women’s Health Protection Act targets these onerous state laws that have been adopted in a concerted strategy to restrict access to abortion across the nation. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law that required abortion providers to maintain admitting privileges at a local hospital failed to advance women’s health and posed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Additionally, last year, Attorney General James led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in helping win another victory in June Medical Services v. Gee, in which the Supreme Court held that a similar law in Louisiana was unconstitutional.
As more states try to pass new laws that restrict women’s reproductive freedoms with medically unnecessary restrictions, new court challenges continue to be filed — a process that can often take years. That’s why Attorney General James and the coalition are today urging Congress to pass the WHPA to ensure that such restrictions are not imposed in the first place.
The consequences of these laws are already evident across the country. Research from 2017 found that 38 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 live in counties without a single abortion clinic. Additionally, as of June 2019, six states have only one abortion clinic remaining. As providers close due to the impact of medically unnecessary restrictions, women are likely to be forced to travel farther and make greater sacrifices to obtain access to care. Unfortunately, however, these burdens often fall disproportionately on lower-income women who cannot afford to travel, take time off from work, or find childcare while they visit their nearest provider.
The coalition goes on to assert that laws aimed specifically at restricting abortion providers have proved, time and time again, to lead to worse health outcomes for women, including:
- Increased maternal mortality rates,
- Delayed abortions, as well as increased health risks and costs for women who find themselves too far from an abortion provider,
- The undertaking of dangerous “black market” or self-induced abortions by some women, and
- A four-times higher risk of developing potentially life-threatening health conditions for women who are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, as well as a substantially greater likelihood of experiencing physical violence from abusive partners or family members.
The widely known negative effects of laws targeting abortion providers undermines any argument that such laws are intended to promote women’s health.
The coalition finally argues that without the WHPA, a lack of consistency in access to abortion services will lead to unnecessary strain on the states’ health care systems. Many women will cross state lines, if they have the means to do so, when abortions are unavailable in the states where they live. In the wake of recent abortion restrictions, some states have experienced a substantial influx of out-of-state patients seeking abortions as a result of reduced access in their home states, as has happened in the past. In fact, in the nearly three years between New York state’s liberalization of its abortion laws in 1970 and 1973 — when the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled that the right to choose was constitutionally protected — close to 350,000 women came to New York from other states where abortions were entirely or largely unavailable. Medically unnecessary restrictions targeting abortion providers create a disservice to women’s health and safety and pose challenges for states that aim to provide a full range of reproductive health services.
Today’s action is just the latest in a long list of measures Attorney General James has taken to protect patients’ reproductive freedom since taking office. Earlier this month, Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general helped score a major victory in the case Reproductive Health Services v. Parson, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction enjoining a Missouri law that, among other things, banned abortions after as early as eight weeks into pregnancy. In January 2020, Attorney General James and the coalition filed an amicus brief in the case, challenging the constitutionality of several, recently-enacted abortion bans in the state of Missouri.
No comments:
Post a Comment