In Texas and across the nation, abortion access a sign of women’s well-being

Last week’s decision by New Orleans’s Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate Texas House Bill 2 (HB2) — the omnibus abortion bill responsible for closing 80 percent of the abortion clinics in Texas — is perhaps the most devastating attack we have seen on reproductive health and rights across the nation. Supporters of HB2 insist they are simply acting in the best interest of women’s health, but in reality do little to address rampant socioeconomic inequities and injustices facing their constituents. This isn’t surprising, given a new report by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and Ibis Reproductive Health that shows states with the most abortion restrictions also have the fewest policies to actually support women and families.

HB2 was originally passed last year and requires all abortion facilities to operate as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they practice. Attorney General Greg Abbott (the Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate running against Democratic State Sen. Wendy Davis, who filibustered for 11 hours last summer in opposition to the bill) has been a steadfast supporter of HB2 and was quick to celebrate last week. “This decision is a vindication of the careful deliberation by the Texas Legislature to craft a law to protect the health and safety of Texas women,” he said.

There are no two ways about it: HB2 was designed to eliminate abortion access in Texas, and it is succeeding. Last year, the state had 41 abortion clinics and today it has eight, with none west or south of San Antonio. A recent study has shown that between November 2013 and April 2014, there was a 13 percent decrease in the abortion rate and medical abortion decreased by an astounding 70 percent. More women are reporting and showing signs of self-induced abortions and others are risking their lives crossing the border into Mexico to access care. These are precisely the results that medical experts warned would come to pass if HB2 became law.

{mosads}The devastating impact of HB2 is compounded by the numerous political and legislative efforts it follows. Lawmakers have gutted the state’s family planning programs, continue to staunchly oppose Medicaid expansion (leaving over 900,000 women who would qualify for Medicaid coverage without it), and seem nonplussed by the woeful inadequacy of the state’s social safety net.

Women and families in Texas already faced a tough road. Almost one in four Texas women (nearly 1.8 million) lives in poverty and nearly half of all children (including 65 percent of Latino children and 58 percent of black children) live in low-income families. Texas gives less money than any other state to families that qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — $260 per month — and in 2012 had the nation’s lowest monthly benefit ($29.30) for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food program. According to a Texas legislative report, the state has the country’s highest percentage of uninsured adults (one in three women aged 15 to 44 doesn’t have insurance), the second-highest percentage of uninsured children, and a lower percentage of its low-income population covered by Medicaid than nearly any other state. It has among the nation’s highest rates of cervical cancer and teen births, and less than two-thirds of pregnant women receive prenatal care in their first trimester. And only 25 percent of schools in Texas teach about pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention in schools.

Despite these facts, lawmakers have chosen to spend their time and money restricting women’s health options, leaving more than 1 million Texas women to travel 300 miles round-trip to access a constitutionally protected health service (some women will need to travel more than 1,000 miles). According to the report by CRR and Ibis, this phenomenon is not unique to Texas. States with the highest number of abortion regulations are often those without robust (or, in many cases, any) policies to address maternal health, improve affordability and access to quality health care, support pre- and post-natal care, improve education, advance economic security, and promote a healthy environment.

The report illustrates an important trend in a number of states, where conservatives are misappropriating the women’s health mantle to advance their own ideological, anti-choice agenda. The political prioritization of restricting family planning and abortion access is a direct threat to the health and economic security of U.S. women and their families. And it is a particularly grave threat in states where women are already experiencing socioeconomic disparities and health inequities, conditions that exacerbate — and are exacerbated by — inadequate reproductive health access.

It’s entirely contradictory for lawmakers to obliterate reproductive health access in the name of protecting the lives and health of women and children while they also reject key pillars of the Affordable Care Act (for example, the contraceptive mandate and Medicaid expansion); ignore unemployment, low wages and pay inequity; oppose evidence-based sexuality education; and strategically dismantle the safety net on which so many low-income families rely.

We must address each of these issues, and so many more, if we are to improve the health and lives of U.S. women and their families. After all, as Melanie Zurek of Provide has said, “abortion will not offer a day of childcare for a neighbor or a ride to the clinic[;] it will not reach out a supportive hand, or vote, or provide itself.” But we know that without access to affordable and safe abortion, in addition to the full range of reproductive health services, other interventions will be meaningless. What is the value of other freedoms if women do not have the right and ability to make informed decisions about their bodies and the most intimate parts of their lives?

Today, too many women in Texas and across the country are paying the steep price of being denied those rights.

Flynn is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn. Eisen is an independent reproductive healthcare consultant. Follow her on Twitter @shulieeisen.