Health

Abortion Rights Issue Regains Momentum

Published

10 years ago

July 7, 2015

Oakland Post

(Debra Sweet/Flickr/CC BY 2.0)

By Jazelle Hunt
NNPA Washington Correspondent

WASHINGTON (NNPA) – When she was five months pregnant, past the point where she could obtain a legal abortion, 23-year-old Kenlissia Jones of Albany, Ga. ordered prescription abortion pills from a Canadian website. When Jones started feeling pain, she was rushed to the hospital.

En route, she delivered the fetus in the backseat of her neighbor’s car. The fetus died 30 minutes later. Instead of being comforted in her hour of loss, Jones was arrested at the hospital and charged with murder.

With agonizing stories such as Jones’ in the news, reproductive rights issues are again coming to the forefront of public attention and are certain to be an issue in the upcoming presidential election.

That battle is already being played out at the state level. Since 2010, legislators in 31 states have passed almost 300 abortion-related laws, more than 50 of them in this year alone.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, White women accounted for 55 percent of all legal abortions in 2011. Black women accounted for 37 percent. Still, reproductive policies disproportionately affect African Americans. They report more unintended pregnancies, have a maternal death rate three-times that of White women, and often lack the health insurance that fully covers women’s care.

“These new restrictions are changing the circumstances under which abortion is provided and how abortion is accessed. We also seeing real access issues, depending on socio-economic status and racial status,” said Elizabeth Nash, who analyzes state policy at the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit advocating for reproductive rights.

“Low-income women have fewer resources on which they can rely, and these restrictions are having more of an impact on them,” she continues, adding that middle- and upper-income women can afford the procedure, which typically costs around $500, have flexible jobs that allow for time off, and have the resources to travel if need be.

Data from the Pew Research Center supports the notion that Black people tend to be socially conservative on causes such as gay marriage and abortion, out of religious belief. But according to surveys conducted by In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, a national policy organization, there’s another overlooked factor.

“Overwhelmingly Black Americans, by numbers of 80 to 95 percent, support a women’s right to determine for herself when she will have children, and how she will have those children,” says Dazon Dixon Diallo, founding partner of the In Our Own Voice agenda and founder and president of SisterLove, an Atlanta-based reproductive justice organization.

“Regardless of religion, regardless of political ideology, regardless of education level or income level, and age…Black folks overwhelmingly support statements that, when it comes to abortion, ‘We should trust Black women to make the important decisions about themselves and their families.’”

As part of a new effort to challenge women’s care provisions built into the Affordable Care Act, 31 states have enacted Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers policies, or “TRAP laws,” which set requirements for abortion clinics and/or medical professionals who perform the procedure.

The laws share a few commonalities across states. For example, physician offices and clinics must obtain a license from the health department, which makes the licensee subject to random searches of their offices and client medical records.

But in general, the requirements vary widely. In Missouri, for example, doctors cannot work in a clinic unless they are also on the staff list at the nearest hospital. In North Carolina, a clinic must meet specific standards for the air quality, flow, and vent placement in recovery rooms. Some laws require clinics to meet hospital standards. Some require medically unnecessary ultrasounds or mental health services before an abortion, while other states shrink the window of time a woman can obtain one.

Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the lone clinic in Mississippi that offers abortion services, has become the stage for a possible U.S. Supreme Court battle. One of the state’s 2012 TRAP laws requires abortion physicians to have privileges at a local hospital. The Jackson center would not be able to meet that requirement and would be forced to close. The court case argues that this closure violates the 14th Amendment rights of women in Mississippi.

The case is on hold until at least the fall, when the court will reconvene and decide whether to consider it.

“When we’ve seen TRAP laws go into effect, we’ve seen clinics close for no good reason. That law does no good for any woman and is not justified in any sense of the word,” said Nash, referring to the Mississippi law in question and others like it. “What would make a lot of sense is for this law to be repealed so the clinic can remain open.”

Abortion is often only one of a range of services physicians and clinics provide, including providing contraceptives, prenatal care, sex education, affordable or free STD testing, and infertility services. Laws targeted at abortion also disrupt access to these services when they threaten clinics’ existence.

Kenlissia Jones’ murder charge was later dropped; although Georgia has TRAP laws, terminating a pregnancy is not a criminal act. As the Supreme Court and state legislatures recess for the summer, various advocacy and social justice groups are mobilizing and educating citizens on the issue in preparation for the election and legislative seasons this fall.

“We have to be a lot more engaged, and especially among Black women as leaders…that we’re able to articulate these issues from within our own communities and on our own behalf,” Diallo explained. “And that when we know these kinds of issues come up – like with Kenlissia – we are proactively ready for any legislative work that needs to be done, before we have to react to punitive legislation that may be working to close any kind of opportunities for women to be self-determining and have autonomy in their own bodies.”

###

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

WHO Says Too Few Countries Taxing Tobacco Products Enough

Don't Miss

Weight-Loss Surgery ‘Superior to Lifestyle Interventions’ for Type 2 Diabetes

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

1 month ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oak Temple Hill Hosts Interfaith Leaders from Across the Bay Area

Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Published

1 month ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

Troy McCombs (from the state of Washington), Elder Mark Mortensen (from Irvine, CA), Michael Pappas, Rev. Ken Chambers, Dr. Ejaz Naqvi, Elder Sigfried Nauman (from the state of Washington), and Richard Kopf. Courtesy photo.

Special to the Post

Interfaith leaders from the Bay Area participated in a panel discussion at the annual meeting of communication leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held on Temple Hill in Oakland on May 31. Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Chambers, said he is thankful for the leadership and support of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints’ global ministry, which recently worked with the interfaith congregations of ICAC to help Yasjmine Oeveraas a homeless Norwegian mother and her family find shelter and access to government services.

Oeveraas told the story of how she was assisted by ICAC to the Oakland Post. “I’m a Norwegian citizen who escaped an abusive marriage with nowhere to go. We’ve been homeless in Florida since January 2024. Recently, we came to California for my son’s passport, but my plan to drive for Uber fell through, leaving us homeless again. Through 2-1-1, I was connected to Rev. Ken Chambers, pastor of the West Side Missionary Baptist Church and president of the Interfaith Council of Alameda County, and his car park program, which changed our lives. We spent about a week-and-a-half living in our car before being blessed with a trailer. After four years of uncertainty and 18 months of homelessness, this program has given us stability and hope again.

“Now, both my son and I have the opportunity to continue our education. I’m pursuing cyber analytics, something I couldn’t do while living in the car. My son can also complete his education, which is a huge relief. This program has given us the space to focus and regain our dignity. I am working harder than ever to reach my goals and give back to others in need.”

Richard Kopf, communication director for The Church of Jesus Christ in the Bay Area stated: “As followers of Jesus Christ, we embrace interfaith cooperation and are united in our efforts to show God’s love for all of his children.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

“Unnecessary Danger”: Gov. Newsom Blasts Rollback of Emergency Abortion Care Protections

Effective May 29, CMS rescinded guidance that had reinforced the obligation of hospitals to provide abortion services under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) when necessary to stabilize a patient’s condition. Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

Published

1 month ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

iStock.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom is criticizing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for rolling back federal protections for emergency abortion care, calling the move an “unnecessary danger” to the lives of pregnant patients in crisis.

Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

“Today’s decision will endanger lives and lead to emergency room deaths, full stop,” Newsom said in a statement. “Doctors must be empowered to save the lives of their patients, not hem and haw over political red lines when the clock is ticking. In California, we will always protect the right of physicians to do what’s best for their patients and for women to make the reproductive decisions that are best for their families.”

The CMS guidance originally followed the 2022 Dobbs decision, asserting that federal law could preempt state abortion bans in emergency care settings. However, legal challenges from anti-abortion states created uncertainty, and the Trump administration’s dismissal of a key lawsuit against Idaho in March removed federal enforcement in those states.

While the rollback does not change California law, Newsom said it could discourage hospitals and physicians in other states from providing emergency care. States like Idaho, Mississippi, and Oklahoma do not allow abortion as a stabilizing treatment unless a patient’s life is already at risk.

California has taken several steps to expand reproductive protections, including the launch of Abortion.CA.Gov and leadership in the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, a coalition of 23 governors supporting access to abortion care.