Supreme Court begins oral arguments on emergency abortion case

Physicians for Human Rights supporting EMTALA in front of the Supreme Court.

In yet another recent Supreme Court case concerning access to reproductive healthcare, the state of Idaho has brought a challenge to EMTALA (the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) in Moyle v. United States. EMTALA, initially passed by Congress in 1986, ensures that hospitals receiving federal funds through Medicare maintain a certain standard of emergency care. This law mandates that patients receive emergency care regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Under EMTALA, when a patient presents with an emergency medical condition, they must be stabilized or transferred to a facility that can provide appropriate treatment before being discharged.

The issue of abortion access arises as medical facilities question whether reproductive health services are covered under EMTALA. Following the devastating Dobbs decision that overturned the federally protected right to abortion, many healthcare providers are hesitating to offer abortion services due to fears of legal repercussions in states with restrictive abortion laws. EMTALA provides a legal framework for delivering emergency care in hospitals that receive federal funding, which includes most hospitals nationwide. Emergency abortions are considered essential for patient stabilization, leading to arguments that denying emergency abortion care violates EMTALA.

Regarding the ambiguity surrounding EMTALA and abortion procedures, President Biden’s administration has taken a clear stance. In July 2022, a memorandum was issued stating that if a physician deems abortion necessary to stabilize a pregnant patient with an emergency medical condition under EMTALA, the treatment must be provided. The memorandum asserts that state laws prohibiting abortion without exceptions for the pregnant person’s life or narrowly defining emergency medical conditions are preempted by EMTALA.

Despite Biden’s memorandum and the legal implications, states like Idaho are resisting. Following SCOTUS’s permission to enact their Stay in the Defense of Life Act, Idaho’s Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador argued that federal law does not preempt their Defense of Life Act, contending that both EMTALA and Idaho’s law aim to save lives. However, this overlooks the impact on women’s freedom to make choices about their bodies in emergencies.

If Idaho succeeds, it could have significant repercussions, especially in states with existing abortion bans where EMTALA’s standards are relied upon for emergency care. Already, states with strict bans are grappling with interpretations of EMTALA, leading to situations where the law cannot be fully upheld, forcing pregnant people to seek emergency abortion services elsewhere. Removal of the law would pose a grave threat to women in need of life-saving care.

Recently, SCOTUS also upheld Idaho’s bills banning gender-affirming care for youth and implementing one of the nation’s strictest abortion bans. Continued support for such cases empowers anti-abortion state legislatures, undermining federal protections and women’s rights. This case reflects ongoing struggles post-Dobbs and will shed light on SCOTUS’s priorities regarding reproductive rights.

Supreme Court votes to uphold Idaho bill banning gender affirming healthcare for LGBTQ+ youth

On Monday April 16th, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to recognize an Idaho ruling banning gender-affirming care for Idaho youth. The SCOTUS ruling affirms Idaho House Bill 71, which aims to ban gender-affirming care for Idaho citizens under the age of 18 and effectively creates a punishable offense for medical professionals who provide gender-affirming care. They can face felony charges of up to 10 years should they provide gender-affirming services to Idaho youth, including hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and gender-affirming surgeries. 

The bill was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court shortly after its passing, as the families of two transgender teens filed a lawsuit petitioning that the bill violates their children’s 14th amendment right for equal protection under the law. The bill made its way to both the Idaho District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court, both of which denied the bill and its subsequent laws, before the Idaho Attorney General, Raúl R. Labrador, sent it off to the Supreme Court with an emergency motion in February. Labrador’s decision placed Idaho House Bill 71 on the Supreme Court docket for Monday’s ruling, one that comes in a long line of rulings from the Supreme Court limiting access to various health care services, primarily for women and the LGBTQ+ community. 

Idaho’s new ban poses an alarming threat to any youth seeking gender-affirming care, as well as medical providers who now have to be fearful of administering it. According to the American Psychological Association, anti-trans youth legislation, like Idaho’s bill, increases levels of anxiety, depression, and suicide risk among the LGBTQ+ youth community. In a 2023 survey performed by the Trevor Project, these details were solidified, with one in three teen members of the LGBTQ+ community expressing constant states of struggling with poor mental health due to anti-trans legislation, a harsh reality as we now see Idaho push this very type legislation through our nation’s highest court. 

In addition to disregarding the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth, the SCOTUS ruling also fails to address current medical standards on gender-affirming care. Major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics support access to gender-affirming care for youth and prioritize the need for increased LGBTQ+ youth healthcare for both their mental and physical well-being. These major organizations not only advocate for and teach procedures for these services, but they have also scientifically proven healthcare services and regulations surrounding them, which allows for youth gender-affirming care to be completely safe, and a viable option for individuals struggling with gender dysphoria. 

Though the SCOTUS decision allows the two petitioning families and their teens to continue accessing gender-affirming care within the state due to the preliminary injunction, it effectively removes gender affirming care for other transgender teens across the state. A number of states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have begun passing laws banning gender-affirming care for their youth. However, the legislation has not gone uncontested, as each state is facing lawsuits as a result of such decision making. 

The backlash from the public shows that this legislation is not supported by the American people. The reality is that the majority of Americans want their children to get the health care they need and do not want LGBTQ+ youth to suffer at the hands of the Supreme Court and state legislators. This level of hatred towards the LGBTQ+ community cannot continue.

Today Dolores Huerta is 93: Learn More About her Years of Activism and Inspiration

Today marks the 93rd Birthday of civil rights activist and labor union organizer Dolores Huerta, a close friend and Board Member of the Feminist Majority Foundation who has advocated for labor rights and women’s liberation for decades. 

With an extensive knowledge of the injustices that farm workers faced, Huerta teamed up with César Cháves to launch the National Farm Workers Association in 1962. Through this organization, she was able to secure aid for California farm workers, help to enact the Agricultural Relations Labor Act of 1975, and organize effective grassroots campaigns and boycotts at the ballot boxes to advance farm workers’ rights. Huerta coined the iconic phrase “Sí, se puede,” which has become a rallying cry for activists around the world.

In addition to her work with labor rights, Huerta is also a tremendous advocate for women’s rights and reproductive freedom. She consistently challenged gender discrimination against women farm workers and worked on behalf of FMF, traveling the country as an advocate for the Feminization of Power: 50/50 By the Year 2000 campaign to empower Latina women to run for office. She has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her efforts.

Huerta is also the president and founder of the Dolores Huerta Foundation for Community Organizing, a non-profit organization that empowers marginalized communities through social justice and civic engagement. The organization spreads awareness on abuse towards marginalized communities and uses grassroot organizing strategies to make real changes on both the local and the state level. Most recent campaigns from the foundation include providing voter education resources, their Get Out the Vote campaign for the upcoming election, and their educational equity program working to empower marginalized communities. 

Dolores Huerta is a fierce advocate, dedicated mentor, and inspiring leader who has changed history and continues to tirelessly fight for justice. Those who wish to celebrate her today are welcome to donate to the Dolores Huerta Foundation to honor her work!

Happy Birthday from FMF!

The Taliban Leader’s Order to Resume Public Stoning of Afghan Women Must Serve as an Urgent Call to End Gender Apartheid

In a distressing new statement released from Taliban leader Haibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban chief condones the public stoning of women for committing what the Taliban deems as adultery and other ‘crimes and violations’ of strict Taliban edicts. Such harsh and barbaric violence against women is the next step taken by the Taliban and their ruler as they continue to perpetuate violence and oppression for Afghan women and girls throughout the country. 

As the UN and the global community urge the Taliban to reverse all edicts and decrees, including those sanctioning flogging, public executions, and stoning, the Taliban remains defiant, issuing further decrees. This harsh reality persists for many Afghan women and girls, unjustly subjected to the strict Taliban rules that have deprived them of their human rights.

Such strict punishment stems from the Taliban’s own ideology, much of it in contradiction with Islamic principles and Afghan values. The Taliban claim it is their interpretation of Islam, in which they use their leader’s strict interpretations of the religion to perpetuate violence against and oppression of Afghan women and girls. 

The Taliban Chief criticizes democracy and the increased concern of western critics of his regime, stating that other nations across the globe only deem the Taliban’s actions as human rights violations as they “conflict with your [other nations] democratic principles.” This cruel view towards human rights coupled with a lack of regard for international laws and obligations suggest a dark outlook on future Taliban action. 

Distressing actions such as the ones that Akhundzada has taken to ensure oppression of women and girls further exemplifies the pertinent need for action in Afghanistan. Public humiliation and physical punishment and the involvement of barbaric harm accompanying unjustifiable decrees is yet another direct attack against women and girls. 

The Taliban’s relentless attacks on women and girls are destructive, with more and more women each day dependent on aid due to job loss and restricted personal freedoms at the hand of the Taliban. 

The actions of the Taliban must serve as a catalyst for the criminalization of Gender Apartheid, with perpetrators held accountable for their actions. Normalizing relations with the Taliban would only signal complicity in their oppression of women and girls. The women and girls of Afghanistan are entitled to basic human rights, and it is the responsibility of the global community to stand in solidarity with them and resist any attempts to normalize their subjugation.

The 2024 National Young Feminist Leadership Conference mobilizes hundreds of student activists

The weekend of March 23rd, hundreds of young feminists from all over the country gathered for the Feminist Majority Foundation’s 2024 National Young Feminist Leadership Conference. This annual event, which had been paused due to COVID-19, was eagerly anticipated by young activists. More than 250 young feminists and 70 speakers made their way to Washington D.C. for a series of panels, skills workshops, and discussions focused on feminism and social justice issues.

FMF President Ellie Smeal introduces speakers at the General Assembly.

The conference kicked off with a General Assembly featuring incredible feminist leaders including former Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, NOW President Christian Nunes, ERA Coalition President Zakiya Thomas, VA House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn, Pandia Health founder Dr. Sophia Yen, Afghan women’s rights activist Dr. Sima Samar, legal scholar Michele Goodwin, and Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights founder Dr. Lauren Beene. 

NYFLC drew participants from both high school and college, with everyone contributing unique perspectives to the strategies for mobilizing the feminist movement. NYFLC panels covered everything from the importance of the ERA to the harsh reality of gender apartheid in Afghanistan and attendees gained tangible skills surrounding voter mobilization, digital organizing, and defending abortion clinics from extremists.

Student activists share their activism pledges on stage with FMF Executive Director, Kathy Spillar.

Student leaders also took the stage, from DePaul University activist Maya Roman highlighting comprehensive sex education post-Dobbs to the Young Feminist Party discussing the importance of youth advocacy for the ERA. Amidst the serious discussions, there were also moments of levity with a feminist comedy night on Saturday and special events like a raffle for Dr. Sophia Yen’s iconic condom tote bag.

Drs. Lauren Beene and Sophia Yen highlighted the importance of accessible birth control and contraceptives.

On Congressional Visit Day, students engaged with their representatives on critical issues in their districts. After a congressional breakfast and briefing, conference attendees were able to visit the offices of their representatives to bring awareness to pertinent issues in their district and demand action. Attendees learned the importance of effectively using their voice on the Hill, as well as how to effectively network in a political environment.

Finally, the conference wrapped up with a lunch at the Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality Monument, where Park Ranger Susan Philpot highlighted the legacy of the Suffragettes and Alice Paul’s work for gender equality. Overall, the conference was a much needed source of inspiration, enthusiasm, and meaningful connections as attendees returned to their campuses fired up and ready to implement what they had learned.

White House Gives Briefing on the FY2025 Budget Regarding Women’s Affairs

On Thursday March 14th, the Biden Administration gave a briefing on the 2024 State of the Union and the ways in which the Fiscal Year 2025 Proposed Budget will bolster women’s rights, resources, and funding. The briefing provided an in depth look at the topics covered in Biden’s speech last week, and allowed for a more comprehensive look at the budgetary measures the Biden administration will be taking to advance the rights and wellbeing of women across the country. 

During the briefing, Director of the White House Gender Policy Council Jennifer Klein and the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget Nani Coloretti broke down the specifics of the FY2025 proposed budget. The budget has four main goals for the advancement of women: lowering family costs, investing in America and American workers, reducing the national deficit by 3 million dollars, and strengthening social security and medicare — all which will work for the advancement of women’s rights, health, and economic wellbeing throughout the country. Overall budget initiatives have a clear focus on strengthening the American economy with women in mind. 

The budget includes a proposed 36 million dollars for family planning and maternal health care, as well as an additional 376 million dollars (an increase of 28% from last year’s budget) regarding health services and research regarding maternal mortality, pre and postnatal care, as well as emergency care. This is an especially important allocation of funds as we continue to see more and more women denied emergency care services in states with abortion bans. In addition to funding for emergency care services, the Biden Administration put a strong emphasis on women’s advocacy and education regarding their rights to emergency care under federal law. These programs include HHS sponsored education on women’s rights to medical care under federal law as well as legal resources and support for filing claims against medical institutions that deny women the care they need. The administration also expressed their support for women’s rights to travel out of state for abortion, including expansion of access to care in different states under the federal Medicaid program. 

The budget also includes the 12 billion dollar women’s health research initiative as proposed by Biden and headed by First Lady Jill Biden in the SOTU address. Throughout the briefing it is clear that women’s research is imperative to the administration to better understand women’s health issues and devote more resources to furthering the healthcare services for women throughout the country. The administration also proposed 8.5 billion dollars towards WIC, 13.7 billion dollars towards women and veteran health care services, 1 billion dollars towards the services provided under the Violence Against Women Act, and roughly 43 million dollars towards women’s health resources for underserved, minority, and tribal populations — 10 million of which will be devoted to legal services for murdered and missing indigenous people. 

The Biden administration also proposed great strides within the budget regarding childcare for women and families. The new presidential childcare proposal includes high quality and affordable childcare for all families with incomes up to $200,000, in which they will be able to enroll their children in accessible child care services from birth to kindergarten for a maximum of $10 a month. Low income families will not be expected to pay the amount based on a yearly earnings basis. The program also includes a national paid family and medical leave where women and families are given extended postpartum, medical, and emergency leave paid up to 12 months. These programs will greatly impact women’s ability to care for their families while still being able to work, and overall provide more affordable solutions to family care, working to better ensure the success of women throughout the country. 

In addition to the budget, the briefing gave an in-depth look at the issues President Biden addressed in his SOTU speech, including the administration’s support for women in states where abortion and reproductive health services have strict bans. While the administration gave multiple measures for support available, they emphasized that the most effective way to support women’s right to abortion and their reproductive rights is to pass a federal law with congress to federally restore rights granted under Roe v. Wade. This is an issue very pertinent to the administration’s plan, and seems to be one that will rightfully be a top priority for the administration.

Caitlin Clark Smashes NCAA Records, Embodies Title IX Feminist Aspirations

On Thursday, Caitlin Clark, an Iowa University senior, made waves when she became the all time NCAA lead scorer. Her win not only surpassed the current women’s basketball score record, but the total overall record for both men and women’s collegiate basketball. Iowa University’s game against Ohio State became the most watched women’s basketball game in over two decades. Clark is an inspiration for many women athletes as well as an example of the progress made for women athletics over the past decades due to state Equal Rights Amendments and Title IX. 

Clark’s success could not have happened without the landmark passing of Title IX in 1972, which banned sex-based discrimination in all federally funded education programs, for both students and employees. Title IX revolutionized the opportunities available for women and girls to participate in athletics around the country, but also prohibited sex discrimination in higher education, career guidance, student financial aid, health and insurance benefits, employment in educational institutions, and sexual harassment. 

Eleanor Smeal, President of FMF, not only championed the passage of Title IX but also worked with Pennsylvania NOW to extend the protections of state ERAs to safeguard the rights of women and girls in sports. In a landmark 1975 case, Commonwealth By Packel v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA), Pennsylvania NOW successfully argued that Pennsylvania’s state ERA ensured female student athletes the same opportunities as their male counterparts in interscholastic sports. The court ruled against the PIAA by-laws, which prohibited girls from competing or practicing against boys, declaring it a violation of both the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the state ERA. This case serves as a compelling illustration of how state ERAs can serve as a legal foundation for advancing equality.

Caitlin Clark’s remarkable achievement stands as a testament to the transformative power of legal victories with Title IX and state ERAs. Her historic win not only shattered records but also highlights the progress made in women’s athletics. Clark’s success serves as a reminder of the strides made in the fight for gender equality in athletics, and the continued work needed to uphold these principles for future generations.

Biden Details Plan to Restore Reproductive Freedoms

Last Thursday, President Biden gave the 2024 State of the Union Address. His speech marked an important step in both Biden’s presidency and his campaign for the 2024 election, particularly to affirm Biden’s proposed actions to help restore reproductive rights and freedoms across America after a devastating loss resulting from the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In tandem with Biden’s address, the White House released a fact sheet outlining Biden’s plan to fight for reproductive freedom with some of the issues and implementations he addressed in his speech. As Biden defended Roe and reproductive rights in America, he stated that “it’s not hyperbole to suggest history is watching. They’re watching.  Your children and grandchildren will read about this day and what we do.”

In his address, Biden called for the restoration of reproductive justice and support of IVF treatment, referencing the story of Latorya Beasley, a woman denied IVF treatment due to the Alabama supreme court shutdown of IVF in the state. “So, tonight, let’s stand up for families like hers,” he stated, encouraging the guaranteed right to IVF nationwide. Biden also addressed the reversal of Roe v. Wade thanked Vice President Harris for her efforts in leading reproductive justice, as well as addressing Kate Cox, a woman who’s life was put in severe danger after being denied abortion services in the state of Texas. Biden concluded his remarks on reproductive rights with the statement “if you, the American people, send me a Congress that supports the right to choose, I promise you I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again” promising Americans that he is committed to restoring reproductive rights across the country. 

The White House’s most recent press release on reproductive freedom states that Biden “will again call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law so women in every state have the freedom to make deeply personal health care decisions.” Through the ongoing implementation of Biden’s Executive Order on Strengthening Access to Affordable, High-Quality Contraception, Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services, Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services, and his Presidential Memorandum on Ensuring Safe Access to Medication Abortion, Biden will continue to support and built upon these initiatives. Moving forward, his main goals are to provide access to abortion and FDA approved medication abortion, defend access to emergency medical care, support the ability to travel for reproductive care, strengthen access to quality affordable contraception, safeguard the rights and privacy of patients and healthcare providers, and to ensure access to accurate information and legal resource regarding reproductive health and rights. 

In regards to protecting the right to abortion and medication abortion, Biden’s White House Fact Sheet outlines a few initiatives. They include defending the FDA approval of abortion medication within courts in which it is challenged, partnering with leaders fighting for abortion access and reproductive rights in individual states, as well as supporting and supplementing reproductive health care for veterans and service members. As we see state circuit courts begin to challenge the FDA’s approval of drugs like Mifepristone, as well as restrict rights to abortion and even rights to travel out of state for an abortion, presidential support for these health services is imperative to winning the fight. 

Defending emergency access to reproductive health care is imperative as we start to see lifesaving healthcare services denied due to strict abortion bans, fear of repercussions, and even extreme restrictions on access to IVF. Through defending and affirming the Administration’s support of emergency abortion care as well as educating patients on their healthcare rights under hospital obligation, Biden intends to strengthen support for emergency health care in the wake of many denied life saving abortion procedures. 

Also included in Biden’s outline are plans to support access to family planning services, use the Affordable Care Act to expand women’s access to affordable birth control, secure patient and provider privacy and safety, as well as helping to provide pro-bono legal counsel to those who need support when challenging reproductive injustices in the court of law.

The UN Meeting in Doha on Afghanistan Concluded, but Will it be Enough to bring Freedom for Afghan Women and Girls?

In February, the UN Special Meeting on Afghanistan in Doha, Qatar concluded discussions on the way forward for Afghanistan. In a press address, the UN Secretary-General  António Guterres shared key concerns and discussion topics, including ensuring inclusivity  in all Afghan structures and institutions, as well as ways in which to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a hub for terrorist activity. 

Key themes of the meeting included placing emphasis on upholding human rights for women and girls, combating drug production and trafficking, and encouraging the non-recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate government. Discussions of including a special envoy for Afghanistan  in all future decision making was also highly emphasized.

In attendance at the conference were 25 special envoys from a number of different countries and regions, as well as representatives from Afghan women’s groups and civil society. Also present were the European Union, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Not present however, was the Taliban themselves. The Taliban refused to participate, demanding that the Taliban Foreign Minister meet with UN Secretary General Guterres, that only the Taliban represent Afghanistan, and members of the civil society be selected by them. When these demands were not met, the Taliban withdrew from attending the meeting. 

Their demands also included denying any representatives of women’s groups and Afghan society (apart from the Taliban) as well as treatment in discussions that was much akin to recognition. The Taliban’s all demands were damaging and counterproductive to the issues at hand, these requests were denied, and the Taliban had no presence in Doha. 

Non-participation of the Taliban, and non-acceptance of their demands, enabled the conference to discuss with the people whose voices mattered most, Afghan women and activists as well as providing the UN to reiterate their strong stance of Taliban non-recognition. This sends a strong message of  support for Afghan women and girls. 

The Taliban absence provided challenges for the conference as well; it did not lead to a more substantive discussion since one of the main parties – also as the perpetrators of violence against women – were missing from the conversations. 

In the end, the key to peace and long term stability will be to work out agreements, including all Afghan people and abolish restrictions against women and girls and minorities. 

Also absent from the conference was any type of formal language written upon Gender Apartheid. The consensus, as Guterres aptly stated, is for the objective of peace, the means of reaching it to be in line with proposals suggested within Security Council Resolution 2721. These implementations, if they are to work as planned, will help to dismantle strict gender apartheid within Afghanistan and Iran, and utilize both UNAMA and a Special Envoy to make agreed upon changes. Yet, there is still no acknowledgement of exact language calling the situation gender apartheid, nor is there any discussion about crafting a new resolution for amending the Rome Statute to solidify and acknowledge current situations of gender apartheid.  

Articulating the situation properly, by naming it gender apartheid, solidifies Taliban accountability for the atrocities they are inflicting upon women and girls, and brings a stable meaning to the situation. As apartheid is an established term, it is important that it can be internationally recognized as applicable to what is happening today in Afghanistan and Iran and the implications these situations have for gender based segregation. 

While the Doha meeting provides some hope for collaborative efforts and the elevation of important Afghan voices and needs, it is imperative that moving forward these conclusions be corroborated and articulated to the harsh regime that wishes to defy them. It is important that the Talbian is present in peace talks for there to be tangible results, yet they have shown their indifference time and again. 

The situation in Afghanistan is one that is complex, and many are calling for all parties, especially women’s meaningful participation in the crisis to be present members of substantial discussions. Only time will tell if the UN holds up their promise for accountability and treating human rights as the utmost important issue when dealing with the Afghanistan crisis. 

For now, Afghan women are denied their human rights by the Taliban, and are confined to their homes, effectively becoming prisoners in their homes.

France becomes the first country to enshrine abortion access as a constitutional right

Greg Dunlap, Licensed under CC BY 2.0 DEED

Last Monday, French lawmakers approved a bill that amends the constitution to include the right to abortion. France’s landmark decision marks the first of its kind, making France the only country in the world to explicitly safeguard  abortion rights within their national constitution. French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal encouraged lawmakers to make France an example in the fight for equality saying, “we have a moral debt to women.”

This is not, however, France’s first time making great strides for women’s rights. In the 1980s, it was a French drug company, Roussel Uclaf, that developed the abortion pill Mifepristone, and France became the first country to officially approve the drug. By 1988, Mifepristone was approved and on the market for public distribution. The French health minister at the time stated “from the moment governmental approval for the drug was granted, [mifepristone] became the moral property of women, not just the property of the drug company.”  

In 1989, the Feminist Majority Foundation began working to get the drug approved in the United States. However, Roussel Uclaf was owned by a German company, Hoechst AG, who would not allow the drug to be approved in any country outside of France, Great Britain, and Sweden in order to avoid the proliferation of the drug throughout the rest of the world. FMF formed a scientific committee that traveled to France to assess the safety of the new drug and met with Hoechst to advocate for the United States’ access. FMF’s committee discovered the numerous benefits of the drugs for people with a uterus, such as treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. Following their trip to France, FMF leadership intensified their campaign for RU486 (Mifepristone) and Contraceptive Research, testifying before Congress and the FDA and gathering over 900,000 petition signatures.  

In 1997, former Roussel Uclaf CEO, Édouard Sakiz, formed a new company, Exelgyn S.A., and secured the rights to the manufacture and sale of Mifepristone from Hoechst. Finally, in 2000, Mifepristone was officially certified by the FDA for legal use in the United States, over 10 years after France approved use of the drug and after a long campaign by FMF.

Today, as we see increased restrictions to Mifepristone access after the overturn of Roe v. Wade and a Texas circuit court decision that challenges the 20 year FDA approval, we find ourselves in a similar place as we were 20 years ago, with France making great strides for women’s rights and bodily autonomy, and the U.S. continuing to lag behind. As we celebrate France’s win, we are invigorated to further our own fight, and better secure the personal freedoms of all women and people who need access to reproductive health care.

Texas woman denied care while experiencing ectopic pregnancy

https://flic.kr/p/KzGLaU

Earlier this month, 25 year old Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz was denied a life saving surgery in Texas after experiencing an ectopic pregnancy, a pregnancy complication in which a fertilized egg attaches itself to a fallopian tube, ovary, or somewhere else outside the uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are very dangerous complications and can be fatal, where the fallopian tube or ovary can stretch too much during the pregnancy and rupture, leading to infection, massive bleeding, and even death. Often treated through surgical procedures, ectopic pregnancies need to be removed as soon as possible before rupturing to reduce the amount of harm caused, a procedure Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz was denied. A fertilized egg cannot survive during an ectopic pregnancy.

Why was the surgical procedure at first denied? The doctors feared prosecution for termination of the pregnancy in the face of strict abortion bans. Though Texas law has included exceptions to abortion bans for medical emergencies, this simply has proven not to be enough. In this case, Norris-De La Cruz’s life was in danger and she was lucky to be treated at a neighboring hospital in Texas 24 hours later. 

Norris-De La Cruz is not the only Texas woman to recently be denied life-saving care. Amanda Zurawski of the ongoing Zurawski v. State of Texas case was denied a life saving abortion procedure after a preterm prelabor rupture at 18 weeks. Her doctors stated that they could “still detect fetal cardiac activity” and only proceeded with the abortion procedure three days later when Zurawaski came down with a life-threatening case of sepsis that nearly ended her life and compromised her future ability to have children. Zurawaski, just like Norris-De La Cruz, was denied care on the basis of possible prosecution of the medical professionals involved. 

Abortion bans undoubtedly cause fear within practicing professionals, many of whom choose not to practice within states with bans due to the risk of losing their jobs, facing extreme fines, and even jail time. If a medical professional does practice in a state with bans, there is no way of making sure that these fears do not impact medical advice and decision making. As this fear starts to rule healthcare workers decisions, it is women who suffer at the hands of fatal medical emergencies. Additionally, many clinics lose the ability to provide vital comprehensive reproductive health resources such as birth control, breast exams, and cervical cancer screenings, resources which can help prevent life threatening disease and illness.

With maternal mortality and preterm birth rates at an all time high, reversal of Roe is a major factor

According to data from the 2022 study completed by the U.S. GAO office, maternal death rates in the U.S. are at an all time high, where significant factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the reversal of Roe v. Wade greatly exacerbated the situation. From 2019 to 2021, maternal death rates rose 40%, a number that reflects the greatest impact on women of color. The rising maternal death rate is deeply concerning as we enter into 2024, a year in which we should have the most technology, knowledge, and resources available for prenatal and postpartum care. Yet, the U.S. is facing more maternal death rates than ever, with a significant number of these deaths a direct result of racial disparity within the U.S. healthcare system. 

In 2022, for every 100,000 live births in the U.S. there were 68.9 maternal deaths of Black women, 27.5 maternal deaths of Latina and Hispanic women, and 26.1 maternal deaths for white women. These statistics represent not only an appalling number of maternal deaths, but also a deep disparity in the maternal health care services that women of color face, with Black women facing 2.6 times higher maternal mortality rates than white women in the U.S.

Disparity in health care services for women of color in the U.S. is a devastating reality. Past experiences of racial trauma and discrimination faced by women of color, systematic racism and bias within the U.S. healthcare system, and socioeconomic struggles that result in lesser access to quality maternal health care are just a few of the factors leading to an inequitable distribution of proper care for women obtaining prenatal care. These issues were only heightened in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, with Covid accounting for 25% of maternal deaths, a great number of which were women of color. 

Yet, the pandemic was not the only driving factor in driving maternal death rates. The recent reversal of Roe v. Wade has also served as a significant factor in reducing proper access to maternal care. With maternal death rates 62% higher in states with abortion bans and restricted access to reproductive health services, the reversal of Roe is working to perpetuate maternal mortality rates, particularly in southern states with greater populations of women of color, and the most restrictions of reproductive health services and abortion access. 

Lack of proper maternal health care is also a large factor in preterm birth and death rates, currently at a global high. With maternal health care quality and preterm deaths closely linked, it is imperative to target these issues at the source and work to provide quality, accessible, and equitable maternal health care for prenatal and postpartum mothers and babies across the world. 

Calling for better health care for women is a common occurrence in the face of Roe’s reversal, one which is frustratingly ignored in many U.S. states quick to pass abortion bans. Yet, devastatingly it is this very lack of health care that is contributing significantly to preterm births, preterm death rates, and  maternal mortality all across the U.S, and thus increasing these rates across the world. 

The statistics provide a grim picture of reality, and reading them clearly provides an urgent need for change in the health care of women and mothers, especially the women of color who are most impacted by such devastating factors. With increased access to health professionals, safe access to educated health professionals in the field as well as overall investment in maternal health throughout the country, many of these harsh statistics could be greatly reduced. With 80% of pregnancy deaths being preventable, there is certainly no reason to have such high maternal mortality rates.  It is clear what needs to be done. Through eradicating the numerous healthcare tragedies that reversing Roe has brought to creating more accessible health care for women all over the U.S., preterm complications and mother and infant mortality rates can be greatly reduced. There is no excuse for such a high mortality rate, nor is there an excuse to be denying women and children all over the U.S. the proper health care they deserve.

>

Support eh ERA banner