Welcome to The Week in Reproductive Justice, a weekly recap of all news related to the hot-button issue of what lawmakers are allowing women to do with their bodies!

This week, yet another global study revealed just about the least surprising news in the world: In countries with fewer restrictions on abortion versus those with many restrictions on abortion, the procedure takes place at roughly the same rate, but with increased cases of unsafe abortions in those with more restrictions. In countries with only minimal restrictions, only about 1 percent of the abortions that take place are unsafe, compared with 31 percent in highly restrictive countries.

In the past 25 years, the abortion rate has dropped substantially according to the study, but this is the consequence of growing access to birth control and sexual health education, rather than restrictions. In essence, what the study shows is that barring abortion access only serves to place women in danger, and that investing in family planning is the only real solution to prevent unplanned pregnancy.

This seemed as good a preface as any to a week of maddening anti-abortion proposals and debates at every level of government. So, without further ado, here’s what you may have missed.

Court blocks 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi from taking effect

At least for the time being, we can all breathe a sigh of relief as a federal court on Tuesday temporarily blocked a 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi from taking effect, just one day after Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill into law. A judge noted that the ban violated Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of the legal right to an abortion until the point of viability.

The state already has an 18-week ban in place, which is already significantly prior to the point of viability, generally agreed to be at around 25 weeks gestation or later. Mississippi also only has one abortion clinic serving the whole state, which could be one factor in delaying abortion for women with unwanted pregnancies, due to the inconvenience of travel and planning; in the state of Texas, between 2013 and 2016, the shutdown of clinics en masse certainly had this effect.

Late-term abortions are already notably rare, with just 9 percent of abortions taking place after the first trimester, and usually under dire, health-related circumstances. In this sense, the 15-week ban, a part of Bryant’s self-avowed plan “to end abortions in Mississippi,” is really just an unproductive act of cruelty and extremity, so here’s to hoping this temporary block is the beginning of its end.

Democratic Illinois primary brought internal abortion debate to the forefront

In Illinois’ third congressional district Tuesday, incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski barely edged out his rival, Marie Newman, in the Democratic primary. Lipinski is known for his status as a “blue dog,” or an anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ Democrat, in sharp contrast with Newman’s pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ stances. Lipinski’s stance is notable at a time of contentious debate about whether Democratic candidates must support abortion rights to be embraced by the party. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last year contended that they do not, and expressed support for Lipinski earlier this month. But with women’s human right to an abortion facing mounting challenges across the country, embracing different, dangerous ideologies comes at the expense of women’s safety and autonomy. And yet, institutional support for Lipinski seems to be what put him ahead of Newman, who had received the endorsements of Emily’s List and NARAL.

SCOTUS debates California law restricting CPCs, seems to favor conservatives

In arguably the most high-profile abortion-related news of the week, the Supreme Court heard the first arguments in a major case about a California law requiring transparency from crisis pregnancy centers that deceive low-income, vulnerable women seeking abortions.

An early part of the debate saw Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor recalling how SCOTUS has previously upheld laws that compelled speech on behalf of anti-choice beliefs, such as in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That case focused on a law in an anti-choice state that required doctors to tell abortion-seeking women about alternatives, such as telling the pregnant woman that the father of her child would be liable for child support.

Therefore, this raised the question of whether pro-choice states like California should similarly be able to require anti-abortion facilities to tell women about their options other than carrying a child to term, or practicing abstinence. Sotomayor also countered a point by Justice Kennedy about the “undue burden” of requiring CPCs to erect self-identifying billboards outside their facilities, pointing out the extent of these organizations’ deceit. Their websites boast everything from highly misleading images of nurses in uniform with medical devices, to a range of outright lies about side effects of abortion and birth control.

Such lies challenge women’s right to informed choices about their bodies, and holding these groups accountable for how their spreading of false information could affect women’s lives is an important step to keeping women safe. The court will reach a decision in the summer.

Kentucky House will vote on second trimester abortion ban

After passing Kentucky’s state House earlier this month, a bill that would ban second trimester abortion passed out of the state Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and will soon face a vote in the full state Senate. The bill would ban the dilation and evacuation procedure, the safest method of abortion in the second trimester, and this would amount to a ban on the procedure after just 11 weeks of pregnancy.

In the state of Kentucky, which has just one abortion clinic left after a number of highly restrictive laws passed in recent years, it’s quite likely the bill will pass the legislature and receive the signature of the state’s vehemently anti-abortion governor. But this was the case in Texas this summer, and the law was almost immediately blocked by a federal judge. A bill as blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous would almost certainly face the same fate, but its success among state politicians in so many red states is concerning, nonetheless.

Ohio GOP introduces full abortion ban

Speaking of blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous bills, check out what Ohio’s GOP was up to this week, all while a federal judge continues to consider a temporarily blocked state law that would ban abortions for fetuses with down syndrome.

Per NPR: “Under a bill introduced Monday, HB 565, the state would prohibit abortions even in cases of rape, incest or danger to a woman’s life. The proposal would allow criminal charges against both doctors and pregnant women seeking abortions and would characterize an ‘unborn human’ as a person under Ohio’s criminal code regarding homicide. That means abortions could be punishable by life in prison or even the death penalty.”

What else can really be said at this point? Let’s just hope that where Ohio state lawmakers have repeatedly failed to muster the decency to block outrageous, dangerous anti-abortion bills, in the past, an outright ban will hopefully bring them to their senses.

Utah passes over-the-counter birth control

In some much-needed not-terrible news, the notably conservative state of Utah will soon see birth control available over the counter in pharmacies. On Tuesday, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert signed a measure allowing women 18 and older to purchase pills, the patch and other forms of contraception without a prescription.

“I think five years ago, it wouldn’t have passed, but I think the world and Utah is changing,” Republican state Sen. Todd Weiler, who sponsored the measure, has said of the bill. “People are more accepting of the fact that these things make sense and they actually save the state money.”

And yet, there is some important distinction to be made between giving women the right to buy birth control at their local CVS out-of-pocket, and protecting women’s right to birth control coverage from employers and insurers. This directive itself may make birth control more accessible and convenient for women who can afford it, but does little for women in the state who may be forced to jump through additional hurdles to access contraception, especially in the wake of the Trump administration’s repeal of the Obama-era contraceptive mandate. So, good for the women this new law affects, I guess.

Tune in next week to see what lawmakers will try next in their never-ending mission to derail reproductive justice!

(image: Daniel X O’Neil on Flickr)

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—

Have a tip we should know? tips@themarysue.com