This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47940659

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Georgia abortion law: What's behind the US 'heartbeat bills'? What's going on in the fight over US abortion rights?
(8 days later)
Georgia has joined a slew of states in legalising an anti-abortion measure that bans the procedure as soon as a foetal heartbeat can be detected. What's behind the push - and the backlash - for these bills and what exactly do they mean for women? Louisiana has joined a slew of states across the US in legalising an anti-abortion measure that bans the procedure as soon as a foetal heartbeat can be detected. What's behind the push - and the backlash - for anti-abortion bills across the US?
On Tuesday, Republican Governor Brian Kemp signed the controversial Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, though the ban will officially go into effect January 2020. On Wednesday, the Louisiana state legislature approved a law that will prohibit abortions once a heartbeat is detectable, without any exceptions for rape or incest. The state governor has now signed that bill into law.
In the first months of this year, nearly 30 states introduced some form of an abortion ban in their legislature. Fifteen have specifically been working with these so-called "heartbeat bills", that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. In the first months of this year, nearly 30 states introduced some form of an abortion ban in their legislature. Fifteen have specifically been working with so-called "heartbeat bills", that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute - a group that researches sexual and reproductive health - says it's a huge increase, up from seven last year. These bills are part of a wider movement of anti-abortion measures sweeping the US.
What are these bills - and why now? Earlier in May, Alabama lawmakers passed a bill to ban abortion outright.
And later this week, Missouri's sole remaining abortion clinic will appear in court as it fights to keep its operating license from the state health department.
If the license is refused, Missouri will become the only US state without an abortion clinic.
What are heartbeat bills - and why now?
"Heartbeat bills", as the term implies, seek to make abortion illegal as soon as a foetus' heartbeat is detectable. In most cases, this is at the six-week mark of a pregnancy - before many women even know they are pregnant."Heartbeat bills", as the term implies, seek to make abortion illegal as soon as a foetus' heartbeat is detectable. In most cases, this is at the six-week mark of a pregnancy - before many women even know they are pregnant.
For context, morning sickness generally happens around the nine-week mark, according to Mayo Clinic, and one study found about only half of women experienced pregnancy symptoms by the end of the fifth week of pregnancy. "We have never seen so much action around six-week abortion bans,"said Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute - a group that researches sexual and reproductive health.
"We have never seen so much action around six-week abortion bans," Ms Nash says. "But we now have seen a shift in the composition of the US Supreme Court." "But we now have seen a shift in the composition of the US Supreme Court."
President Donald Trump has thus far successfully placed two conservative Supreme Court justices - moving the nation's top court further to the right, and, Ms Nash says, making it seem more amenable to revoking abortion rights. President Donald Trump has placed two conservative Supreme Court justices and, Ms Nash says, making it seem more amenable to revoking abortion rights.
"Because of this, we are seeing state legislatures looking to ban abortion as a way to kickstart litigation that would come before the [Supreme] court, and the court could then roll back abortion rights.""Because of this, we are seeing state legislatures looking to ban abortion as a way to kickstart litigation that would come before the [Supreme] court, and the court could then roll back abortion rights."
Progressive legislators are also responding - in January, New York signed into law a bill safeguarding abortion rights after 24 weeks in certain cases, reigniting discussions about the controversial procedure.Progressive legislators are also responding - in January, New York signed into law a bill safeguarding abortion rights after 24 weeks in certain cases, reigniting discussions about the controversial procedure.
Ms Nash notes that a conservative shift at the state level was apparent in 2010 as well, but under the Obama administration, there was still a federal safety net for abortion rights. A backlash from business
A brief history of US abortion A growing number of public figures have threatened to divest from the states enacting anti-abortion legislation.
Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, says Georgia's heartbeat bill would make it "difficult" to keep filming there.
Georgia has become a popular destination for Hollywood producers who flock to the state for its generous tax breaks for films. It offers a 20% incentive on productions of $500,000 or more and a further 10% if the film includes Georgia's logo in its credits.
Blockbusters like Black Panther and Avengers: Endgame were recently shot in the state.
However, Mr Iger said "many people who work for us will not want to work there" should the law go into effect.
"We will have to heed their wishes," he told Reuters.
Earlier this week, streaming giant Netflix said it would "rethink" its operations in the state if the law goes into effect. Netflix series Stranger Things and Ozark are both shot in Georgia.
But the threats to leave Georgia if the law should take effect are unlikely to be realised in the near future.
Georgia's new law - like others in the anti-abortion movement - are intentionally unconstitutional. Anti-abortion supporters anticipate resulting legal challenges and hope the appeals will reach the US Supreme Court to allow them to re-visit federal laws protecting the procedure.
As of yet, despite the wave of abortion bans, it remains legal in all 50 US states.
Meanwhile, stars including Amy Schumer, Ben Stiller, Christina Applegate, Laverne Cox and Alec Baldwin wrote to the governor saying they would "do everything in our power to move our industry to a safer state for women".
Actor Jason Bateman, who stars in the Netflix show Ozark and in HBO's The Outsider, which are both currently filming in Georgia, told The Hollywood Reporter: "I will not work in Georgia, or any other state, that is so disgracefully at odds with women's rights".
So, how did we get here?
The US movement against abortion began in the 1800s, spearheaded by physicians who saw non-medical professionals providing abortion services as both a threat to their industry and harmful to women's health.The US movement against abortion began in the 1800s, spearheaded by physicians who saw non-medical professionals providing abortion services as both a threat to their industry and harmful to women's health.
By 1900, every state had banned abortions entirely - with exceptions granted only at the discretion of a licensed physician.By 1900, every state had banned abortions entirely - with exceptions granted only at the discretion of a licensed physician.
The issue arose again in the 1960s, when women began advocating for reproductive rights. Colorado changed its anti-abortion law in 1967, followed soon after by California and New York.The issue arose again in the 1960s, when women began advocating for reproductive rights. Colorado changed its anti-abortion law in 1967, followed soon after by California and New York.
Amid these efforts to return the choice to women, the anti-abortion movement as we currently see it was born, led largely by Catholics and other conservative religious groups. The oldest such group in the US, the National Right to Life, was founded in 1968.Amid these efforts to return the choice to women, the anti-abortion movement as we currently see it was born, led largely by Catholics and other conservative religious groups. The oldest such group in the US, the National Right to Life, was founded in 1968.
Most funding for the movement still comes from religious conservatives - including wealthy donors like the vocally pro-life DeVos family.Most funding for the movement still comes from religious conservatives - including wealthy donors like the vocally pro-life DeVos family.
In 1973, the Supreme Court issued the landmark Roe v Wade ruling legalising abortion in all 50 states.In 1973, the Supreme Court issued the landmark Roe v Wade ruling legalising abortion in all 50 states.
Roe v Wade protects a woman's right to an abortion only until viability - that is, the point at which a foetus is able to live outside the womb, generally at the start of the third trimester, 28 weeks into a pregnancy.Roe v Wade protects a woman's right to an abortion only until viability - that is, the point at which a foetus is able to live outside the womb, generally at the start of the third trimester, 28 weeks into a pregnancy.
According to a study published in the BMC Women's Health journal, financial constraints, timing, partner-related issues and the need to care for other children are the main reasons for US women obtaining abortions - and the majority of women surveyed reported several of these rationales contributing at the same time. What's happening in Missouri?
In Missouri, the battle over abortion rights is centred on the state's last remaining abortion clinic, which is in jeopardy amidst a standoff with state officials.
The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services has refused to renew the licence for the clinic, set to expire on 31 May, unless its physicians agree to interviews about what it calls "potential deficient practices".
Planned Parenthood, which runs the clinic, has refused, saying it could mean doctors who perform abortions face criminal charges.
It has sued the state for the right to keep performing abortions at the clinic. The case will be heard on Thursday in St Louis.
"This is not a drill. This is not a warning. This is a real public health crisis," said Dr Leana Wen, President of Planned Parenthood. Without the clinic, "more than a million women of reproductive age in Missouri will no longer have access to a health center in the state they live in that provides abortion care."
If the clinic is shut down, Missouri will become the only state in the US without one, a first since 1974 - the year after the landmark Roe v Wade decision. Five other US states have only one.
In a statement, the Missouri Health Department cited "ongoing concerns" about the clinic, including violations of Missouri law and "failed surgical abortions in which patients remained pregnant".
Planned Parenthood dismissed the charges as politically motivated.
What will the Supreme Court do?
This week, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on an Indiana law restricting abortions, providing a hint at how the top court may respond to other anti-abortion laws.
In an unsigned opinion, the justices upheld a state requirement that all foetal remains - whether the product of a miscarriage or an abortion - be either buried or cremated.
But the justices declined to revive another part of the law that would ban abortions if chosen because of the sex or disability of a foetus.
The court's actions were a mixed bag for those on both sides of the abortion debate.
Anti-abortion activists viewed the provision as a step toward recognising foetal tissue not as medical waste but as human remains deserving dignified treatment.
Abortion rights groups countered that the Supreme Court precedent does not consider a foetus to be human. The purpose of the Indiana law, Planned Parenthood wrote in a statement, is to "shame and stigmatise" women seeking abortions.
By not examining the case in full, the top court effectively punted an opportunity to revisit the 1973 Roe v Wade precedent upholding a woman's right to abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, said his colleagues on the bench would eventually have to act.
The BBC's Anthony Zurcher says the ruling could be an indication that a majority of the justices on the court are in no hurry to reverse 46 years of precedent.
What does the anti-abortion movement want?What does the anti-abortion movement want?
The movement in recent years has grown increasingly diverse, advocates say, and as a result, not everyone within it has the same vision of how to move forward.
For Karen Swallow Prior, a professor at the evangelical Liberty University who is a proponent of banning abortion outright, these foetal heartbeat bills are "a good faith effort" to restrict abortion.For Karen Swallow Prior, a professor at the evangelical Liberty University who is a proponent of banning abortion outright, these foetal heartbeat bills are "a good faith effort" to restrict abortion.
While Prof Prior supports the legislation, she says that such a dramatic step is unlikely to result in any lasting political change - but it does spark potentially constructive debates.
"What I like about these heartbeat bills is the name alone allows us to think about the unborn children in a different way than we're used to talking about in political discourse."
Prof Prior says those supporting abortion rights - the "pro-choice" camp - argue that most abortions occur within the first trimester, but also say some women do not realise they are pregnant until 20 weeks in, so these heartbeat bills have the added effect of "encouraging women to be more aware and conscious of what's going on in their bodies".
"These bills and the pro-life [anti-abortion] movement are not about punishing women for having sex, they are about preserving a human life that already exists," Prof Prior says. She emphasised it was not a religiously motivated viewpoint, but one based on science and human rights."These bills and the pro-life [anti-abortion] movement are not about punishing women for having sex, they are about preserving a human life that already exists," Prof Prior says. She emphasised it was not a religiously motivated viewpoint, but one based on science and human rights.
It's worth noting, however, that the science and medical community remains just as embroiled in the debate over when a foetus is alive.
Kyle Eisenhuth, the 21-year-old president of the pro-life group at Liberty, echoes the same argument.
"I'm a devout Christian, so that's part of it, but I really think science is on the side of the pro-life movement," he says. "Just because we have that faith doesn't change how a baby has a heartbeat at 18-21 days."
Mr Eisenhuth says that he believes progressive retaliation to Mr Trump has had the biggest impact on jump-starting these bills.
"More than anything else, when New York passed their bill on abortion, I think that inspired a lot more activism."
In addition to these six-week bans, pro-life activists have fought for restrictions on abortion methods, rationales (such as sex or race or abnormality) and trigger bans that would end abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned.In addition to these six-week bans, pro-life activists have fought for restrictions on abortion methods, rationales (such as sex or race or abnormality) and trigger bans that would end abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 18 states have laws that would restrict abortion in the absence of the federal law, while 10 have laws that would protect abortion in the same scenario.According to the Guttmacher Institute, 18 states have laws that would restrict abortion in the absence of the federal law, while 10 have laws that would protect abortion in the same scenario.
But some activists are focusing instead on changing infrastructure they view as promoting abortion, rather than seeking to immediately criminalise the procedure.But some activists are focusing instead on changing infrastructure they view as promoting abortion, rather than seeking to immediately criminalise the procedure.
Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, founder of New Wave Feminists, says her organisation wants to make abortion "unthinkable".Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, founder of New Wave Feminists, says her organisation wants to make abortion "unthinkable".
"We're arguing about autonomy - which is more important, the woman's or the child's? As a pro-life feminist, I believe we have to take into account both.""We're arguing about autonomy - which is more important, the woman's or the child's? As a pro-life feminist, I believe we have to take into account both."
She is not opposed to the heartbeat bills, but says her own activism focuses on women's empowerment.She is not opposed to the heartbeat bills, but says her own activism focuses on women's empowerment.
"We know statistically it's a decision made on financial constraints, lack of access to healthcare, things like that," she says. "Let's get to the real root as to why women feel they have to have an abortion in the first place.""We know statistically it's a decision made on financial constraints, lack of access to healthcare, things like that," she says. "Let's get to the real root as to why women feel they have to have an abortion in the first place."
Ms Herndon-De La Rosa says she had to fight to continue her own education when she became pregnant at 16.
In her view, abortions "help society not adequately meet the needs of women" by promoting the idea that women cannot have children and be successful in other aspects of their lives.
What about the other side?What about the other side?
Reverend Marie Alford-Harkey says the right to have an abortion goes hand in hand with the right to follow one's own values and morals.Reverend Marie Alford-Harkey says the right to have an abortion goes hand in hand with the right to follow one's own values and morals.
Rev Alford-Harkey, who is a Christian pastor and the president and CEO of the Religious Institute, a national multi-faith organisation working for sexual, gender, and reproductive justice, says the notion of reproductive justice, a term created by black women in the 1990s, is behind her pro-choice views.Rev Alford-Harkey, who is a Christian pastor and the president and CEO of the Religious Institute, a national multi-faith organisation working for sexual, gender, and reproductive justice, says the notion of reproductive justice, a term created by black women in the 1990s, is behind her pro-choice views.
"It's the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, to have children, to not have children, to parent in safe and sustainable communities," Rev Alford-Harkey explains."It's the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, to have children, to not have children, to parent in safe and sustainable communities," Rev Alford-Harkey explains.
"Justice is a very Christian concept, and this particular framework grew out of communities that were not being served.""Justice is a very Christian concept, and this particular framework grew out of communities that were not being served."
Rev Alford-Harkey recently began working as an abortion doula, accompanying women into the exam rooms, speaking with them before, after and sometimes even during the procedure.Rev Alford-Harkey recently began working as an abortion doula, accompanying women into the exam rooms, speaking with them before, after and sometimes even during the procedure.
"I've been asked once or twice if I think God would forgive them and I say, I don't think there's anything for God to forgive. What I think is a sin is that we've taught people that God won't forgive them for doing what's best for their own bodies, their own lives.""I've been asked once or twice if I think God would forgive them and I say, I don't think there's anything for God to forgive. What I think is a sin is that we've taught people that God won't forgive them for doing what's best for their own bodies, their own lives."
Rev Alford-Harkey says viewing abortion as an issue rather than focusing on the human needs has exacerbated the problems. What has Trump said?
"What is most resonant for me is the great variety of people I've seen [as a doula] - from a woman who I'm pretty certain was being abused by the person who impregnated her, to a woman who was barely out of high school and knew she couldn't care for a child, to a woman who had three children and knew she couldn't care for another." President Donald Trump broke his silence last week on the recent restrictions across the US.
"Part of the problem here is there's not equal access to all of the things that people need to be healthy and whole." Mr Trump, whose position on abortion has shifted dramatically over the years, posted a series of tweets outlining his views, saying he was against abortion except in cases of rape, incest or a "serious health risk" to the mother.
This belief in ensuring equal access and choice for everyone, rooted in Christianity for Rev Alford-Harkey, is why she says there is "absolutely no good to come of a six-week ban". "I am very strongly pro-life, with the three exceptions - rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan", he said.
"It's just removing access for people who are already on the margins," she says. The president added that judicial measures, such as his appointment of conservative Supreme Court judges Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, had helped to make abortion laws in various states more restrictive.
But the reverend adds that seeing religious communities speak out about their values has made her more hopeful. Mr Trump's views on abortion have evolved considerably over time.
"What's changing with Trump is progressive people with faith are becoming more visible in advocating for our values. In 1999, he said: "I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still - I just believe in choice."
"Instead of just framing the debate of religion versus access to abortion, there's now a more nuanced conversation happening that recognises that there is not one 'religious' position." But in March 2016, he clarified that his position was "pro-life with exceptions".
Additional reporting by Sarah Shaath Last week, he tweeted that Republicans must unite to "win for life in 2020".